Create Location

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only or destructive. The description adds that it returns an HTTP 201 and the created object, but it has an internal inconsistency by mentioning 'Project records' instead of 'Location records'. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., side effects or auth needs) are disclosed.

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 only three sentences and gets to the point quickly. However, it contains redundancy by repeating 'Creates a new Project records' twice, which wastes space and could be more concise.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should cover return values; it mentions 'returns the created object on success'. However, it lacks details on the nested 'location' parameter structure and does not address potential errors or pagination, especially given the tool's complexity with nested objects.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the required parameters, which the schema already does, but adds no extra meaning beyond restating them.

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' and resource 'Location' for a specified Project. While it distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying the project context, there is some confusion with redundant mention of 'Project records' which could imply a different scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_location_admin' or 'find_or_create_location_s_by_path'. It lacks exclusion criteria and fails to help an agent decide between sibling tools.

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