Set project location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: temporary unlock behavior, lock-state dependency for northDirection/surveyPoint, side effect that date/location changes recompute the sun position, and the return shape. No annotation contradiction.

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?

Front-loads the primary purpose, then adds partial-update instruction, prerequisite, side effect, and return behavior in four compact sentences. No wasted language.

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 14-parameter nested mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: partial updates, survey point lock/unlock prerequisite, sun-position recomputation, and return value analogous to get_geo_location. Combined with 100% schema coverage and annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantic guidance beyond the schema by clarifying partial-update semantics ('Give only the fields to change') and the conditional use of unlockSurveyPoint. It also ties the return value to get_geo_location, helping interpret the result object.

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 verb ('Changes') and resource ('project location'), plus the Archicad UI path for disambiguation. It also references the sibling read tool indirectly by noting the return value is 'as get_geo_location', making the mutation/read distinction clear.

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?

Explicitly says 'Give only the fields to change', covering partial-update usage. It gives a prerequisite for changing northDirection or the survey point (unlocked Survey Point; pass unlockSurveyPoint: true), including the temporary unlock behavior. It does not explicitly say to read current values first with get_geo_location, but the condition for unlock is well stated.

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