Update Project Location

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

The description states that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and returns the modified object. Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open world, so the description adds some behavioral context but does not go beyond that.

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 3 sentences, front-loaded with the action, includes usage hint, required parameters, and API endpoint. No redundant or vague statements.

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 update tool with no output schema, the description adequately informs that the modified object is returned. The API endpoint is included for reference. Given the tool's simplicity and the surrounding context of sibling tools, this is sufficiently complete.

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 schema provides full descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds that project_id and location_id are required, which is already in the schema. No additional semantics for the optional parameters (node_name, parent_id) beyond the schema.

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 'Update the specified Location' and specifies it operates on existing project records. It includes the verb 'update' and the resource 'location', and is distinct from sibling tools like create_location or delete_project_location.

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 context for when to use (update existing records) and lists required parameters, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives. There is no guidance on choosing this over related tools.

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