Create location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful hierarchy behavior (root vs child location), but says nothing about permissions, side effects on parent records, or whether duplicates are rejected. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the parent_id decision rule. Nothing is padded, though the phrasing could be marginally tighter.

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 9-parameter creation tool with 11% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should carry far more weight. It covers only the one required parameter and parent_id, leaving the majority of optional fields unexplained and giving no hint of the returned location or identifiers.

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 only 11% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It explains parent_id (which the schema already documents) and confirms name is sufficient, but address, context, country, farm_id, category, province_state, and legal_land_description get no meaning from either source.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a location') and immediately clarifies the two creation modes (root premises vs sublocation), which is genuinely differentiating. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like update_location, archive_location, or restore_location, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: omit parent_id for a premises, set it to an existing premises for a field/pen/barn/sublocation, and notes that name alone is sufficient for a valid call. No exclusion guidance or alternatives (e.g., update_location) are named, so it is clear context without full routing.

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