Update Location

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

The description discloses that the tool performs a partial update ('only the supplied fields are changed') and returns the modified object on success. Since annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint: false), the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as the partial update behavior and return value.

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 efficient with four sentences, each adding information: action, use case, return behavior, and required parameters. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Minor technical details (Procore API, endpoint) could be trimmed for agent-focused conciseness, but overall no wasteful content.

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?

The description explains that the tool returns the modified object and performs a partial update, which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it does not clarify that the 'id' parameter is a URL path parameter versus the request body parameters (project_id and location), which could lead to invocation errors. The description is adequate but has gaps in structural details.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 3. The description merely lists the required parameters (id, project_id, location), which is redundant with the schema. It does not add new semantic meaning or clarify parameter usage 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?

The description states 'Update the specified Location' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it then confusingly mentions 'update an existing Project records', creating ambiguity about whether the tool updates a Location or a Project record. This inconsistency reduces clarity, though the initial sentence still conveys the primary purpose.

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 gives a general use case ('Use this to update an existing Project records') but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_location or delete_location. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative references are included, leaving the agent without sufficient context for tool selection.

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