update_location

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses partial-update semantics but doesn't state whether the update is destructive to unspecified fields (it implies they're preserved), whether special permissions are required, whether the primary flag has cascading effects on other locations, or what response is returned. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral disclosure is warranted.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero filler. The first sentence establishes purpose and scope; the second clarifies the update model. While very brief, the description efficiently covers the core purpose without unnecessary detail.

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 partial-update tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is workable but thin. It confirms the PATCH-like semantics, which is the most important behavioral trait, and schema covers all parameter names. However, no annotations and no output schema mean unclear return value expectations and no safety information. Given the tool's complexity (13 params), a bit more context about primary-location side effects or ID requirements would improve completeness.

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 documents all 13 parameters. The description adds the important detail that only supplied fields are changed, which adds meaning for optional parameters. However, it doesn't clarify subtle semantics like whether setting primary=true clears primary on other locations, or whether organization_id is immutable after creation. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage but some edge semantics are left unstudied.

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 ('Update'), the resource ('existing location in IT Glue'), and the partial update semantic ('Only the fields you supply are changed'). It distinguishes from create_location (a sibling) by explicitly saying 'existing'. It doesn't name sibling alternatives, but the create/update distinction is implied by 'existing'.

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's 'Only the fields you supply are changed' conveys partial-update behavior, which is meaningful usage context. However, it provides no guidance on when to prefer this over create_location, no prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing location ID), and no note about which fields are immutable (such as organization_id). No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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