Save a place

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. "Saves or updates" hints at upsert behavior, but it never states what key determines identity (name?), whether an existing place is overwritten, whether saving requires the place to already exist in some address index, or whether there is a cap on saved places. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the qualifying purpose sits at the end where it reads naturally. It is efficient; it is just thin rather than padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (4 flat parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), so expectations are modest, but the two things an agent most needs — the identity/upsert key and the relationship between address and lat/lng — are absent, and there are no annotations to fall back on. The definition is under-specified for a write operation that silently updates existing data.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%: name and address carry descriptions, but lat and lng have only numeric bounds and no explanation in either schema or description. The description adds nothing about how address relates to coordinates, which one wins when they disagree, or that name is the identity key for the update path. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Saves or updates a named place" gives a specific verb pair and resource, and the trailing purpose clause ("used as a pickup or destination") tells the agent what the stored entity is for, which implicitly separates it from list_places, remove_place and suggest_places. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent still has to infer the boundary itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says whether to call this versus suggest_places when the user names a place loosely, versus set_current_location, or whether an existing place with the same name should be saved again. The purpose clause implies a usage context but states no conditions or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.