cigchat_shop_locations_update

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the required 'Manage Team' scope and the HTTP PUT method, which are useful traits. However, it does not describe whether it performs a partial or full update, effects on unspecified fields, or the response format, 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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. Every piece of information—the action, the endpoint, and the scope requirement—earns its place with no 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?

For a mutating tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain partial vs. full update semantics, what happens to omitted fields, or what the response contains. The auth scope is helpful but insufficient for correct invocation.

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 only 17% (one of six properties described), so the description should compensate. It does not mention any parameter meanings or which fields can be updated. While names like lat, lng, name, and address are self-evident, 'note' remains ambiguous, and the description adds no clarity.

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 clearly states 'Update location' with a specific verb and resource, and the endpoint confirms it targets shop locations. It distinguishes from sibling create/delete/get/list tools by the 'update' action, though it is terse.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create, delete, or get_info. It only mentions the required scope, which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.

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