Create a new location

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

Reveals important mutation behavior beyond the annotations: POST to /api/v1/locations, optional PATCH to /address, geocoding behavior when lat/lng are omitted, and the returned Crave location id. Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, so these side-effect and auth details add real value. It doesn't mention the dry-run/apply mode, though that is covered in the schema.

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 first three sentences are dense and front-load purpose, auth, behavior, and next steps. The final sentence about rebuilding @craveup/mcp and restarting the Cursor MCP server is a developer meta-note that doesn't materially help tool invocation, but the overall description still earns its length.

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 a mutation tool with a rich schema and output schema, the description supplies the missing execution context: endpoint, required authentication, optional address behavior, return value, and suggested follow-up tools. No critical operational detail needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 already covers about 80% of parameters, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds some useful context such as 'pass lat/lng to skip geocoding.' However, the description says the request POSTs { restaurantDisplayName } while the actual required parameter is name, creating potential confusion for an agent mapping arguments to parameters.

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?

States a specific action and scope: 'Create an additional location under the authenticated merchant (multi-location setup).' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_locations, delete_location, and set_location_address. The verb, resource, and business context are all present.

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?

Gives clear context: multi-location setup, requires craveup login and Clerk session, and lists follow-up tools such as update_store_hours and import_menu. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage-exclusion guidance.

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