add_location

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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds the critical behavior that cities and wiring closets are created via Packet Tracer's own buttons while other kinds are written into the network file into a temporary copy that requires save_network to persist — exactly the kind of non-obvious side effect an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded verb and resource with the kind list immediately after, followed by the persistence caveat. Two sentences with little waste, though the second sentence is dense and could be split for scannability.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the unusual persistence behavior and kind semantics; the only gap is the absence of sibling routing or failure conditions for a mutation tool.

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 80%, so the per-parameter docs already carry most meaning; the description only paraphrases 'an optional name and position'. It adds no syntax or format detail (e.g. inside path form, percent semantics) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource ('Create a place in the physical workspace') and enumerates the exact kinds it accepts, so an agent can immediately tell this apart from siblings like add_device or remove_location. The scope (locations, not devices or links) is unambiguous.

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?

It gives contextual guidance ('save with save_network to keep them') which is real usage advice, but never states when to choose this over move_to_location, rename_location, or remove_location, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied by the enumerated kinds rather than explicitly framed.

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