update_location

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by explaining the partial-update behavior ('Only the fields you supply are changed'). However, it omits other important behavioral details such as prerequisites (e.g., the location must exist), authorization requirements, or what happens on invalid input, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Two sentences, both dense with information. The first sentence gives purpose and scope; the second adds the key partial-update nuance. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 is adequate for a basic update tool, covering the core action and the partial-update behavior. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the updated location object) or error behaviors. For a 13-parameter mutation tool, this is a noticeable gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that the optional parameters are only modified when supplied, which is essential for understanding update semantics. This goes beyond the per-field descriptions in 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 states a clear action ('Update an existing location') and the resource (location in IT Glue). The word 'existing' differentiates it from the sibling create_location, and the verb 'update' is specific and 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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: to modify an existing location, as opposed to creating a new one. The phrase 'Only the fields you supply are changed' provides context for partial updates. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude cases, so it stops short of full guidance.

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