add_job_post_location

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a write operation and that it is admin-only, plus a validation constraint from the job board. It does not describe duplicate handling, failure modes, or reversibility, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action and the auth constraint, and no filler. The line breaks fragment related ideas slightly but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, mutation class, auth level, a precondition, and an ID-lookup path. It is close to complete; only edge-case behavior on duplicates or invalid location types is absent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only touches job_post_id, and its suggestion ('list_job_posts_for_job') actually diverges from the schema's own guidance ('get from list_job_posts'), which muddies rather than clarifies the source tool.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Add a location to a job post') and scopes it to v3 job posts that can have several locations. It is clearly distinct from remove_job_post_location and update_job_post, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 supplies a concrete precondition ('The post's job board must allow the location type') and routes the agent to list_job_posts_for_job for obtaining job_post_id. There is no explicit when-not-to-use statement or comparison against the removal sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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