Locations Create

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world, non-idempotent operation. The description adds two pieces of context not in annotations: the required OAuth scope (write_locations) and the pinned API version (2025-03), both meaningful for auth and compatibility. It stops short of saying what the call returns or how errors surface.

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, followed by method/path, scope, and version. Every line conveys operational information; nothing is padded or redundant.

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 simple create with fully described params and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is adequate. Since there is no output schema, it leaves the agent guessing about the response shape (e.g., whether the created location including its ID is returned) and any uniqueness or validation constraints on name.

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% — the name i18n object, address structure, allows_pickup, and additional_fields merge behavior are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Create a location") and adds the HTTP method and path (POST /locations), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as tiendanube_locations_update or locations_set_default, but the name suffix and the singular-object framing make the distinction reasonably 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?

The required scope (write_locations) is a useful gating prerequisite, and "Create" implies usage when a new location is needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives like locations_update for existing locations, and no note about limits on how many locations can be created.

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