Update location

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real behavior beyond that: optimistic concurrency via expected_version, and the guarantee that reparenting does not mutate prior event snapshots. It omits partial-update semantics and permission requirements, but the added context is substantive.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded before the two caveats. Slightly dense but every sentence carries information.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description should at least indicate whether updates are partial or full-replace, what scope (farm_id) means, and what is returned. It covers concurrency and reparenting well but leaves the bulk of the call surface unexplained.

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?

With 11 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and only explains two: expected_version (stale-edit rejection) and parent_id (reparenting). The remaining nine parameters, including the farm_id scope and the enum constraints, are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (Update) and resource (a location directory entry), which is distinct from create_location, archive_location, restore_location, and set_home_location. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but 'directory entry' scope reasonably separates metadata edits from lifecycle operations.

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?

Implies usage through the concurrency hint ('pass expected_version to reject a stale edit') and the reparenting note, but never states when to choose this tool over archive_location/restore_location/set_home_location. No prerequisites, no when-not guidance.

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