create_location

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal a useful behavioral trait (country_id is typically required), which adds value. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on creation (return shape), whether it's idempotent, or whether it can overwrite existing locations. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, there's meaningful detail, but gaps remain about failure modes and return behavior.

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?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence that packs purpose, resource type, and a practical usage note. Zero wasted words, no redundancy with the schema, and the most important operational detail (country_id requirement) is front-loaded for the agent.

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?

For a create tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the essential action, notes a critical requirement (country_id), and identifies the parent context (organization). The main gap is lack of guidance about what a successful response looks like, but with no output schema present, the agent can infer typical creation semantics. Given the tool's complexity, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters effectively. The description adds value mainly for country_id (explaining it's typically required and how to find valid IDs) and clarifies the success/failure implication of required params names. This is marginal value beyond what the schema provides, fitting the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Create') + resource ('location/physical address/site') + target ('for an organization in IT Glue'). It also adds valuable scoping detail that distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_locations, get_location, and update_location — it's specifically for creation, not querying or modification.

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?

The description clearly indicates when to use this tool (creating a new location) and notes the practical requirement of a name and typically a country_id. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast against siblings like update_location or search_locations, though the create-vs-search distinction is largely implicit. The context is clear but no explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance is given.

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