set_location

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral traits: partial updates preserve unspecified fields, parent moves the location, clear_parent moves to root, entity_type conversion is rare, and asset_id overrides auto-assignment. These details give the agent a deeper understanding of side effects and edge cases, going well beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 a compact, well-organized paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and then details each behavior. Every sentence adds valuable information, and there is no redundancy or filler. It manages to cover many nuances without becoming overly long.

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 complex mutation tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the core behavior, partial updates, parent handling, rare conversion, and asset_id override. The only minor omission is the tags_mode parameter and return value, but the overall description fully equips an agent to use the tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the purpose of most parameters: location, new_name, description, notes, tags, fields, parent, clear_parent, entity_type, and asset_id. However, it omits the critical 'tags_mode' parameter (add/remove/replace), which is not self-evident. This gap prevents a perfect score.

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 begins with 'Edit a LOCATION's metadata', clearly identifying the action and resource. It lists specific editable fields and distinguishes itself from create/delete/list operations on locations. The scope is explicit with 'Only the args you pass change'.

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 clear context on when to use: for editing existing location metadata, with details on finding the location by name or path and partial updates. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, though the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like create_location or set_fields.

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