Locations Set Default

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

Annotations already declare this a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world mutation, and the description usefully adds the required scope (write_locations) and API version (2025-03), which are not in structured fields. However, it omits the most important behavioral consequence: whether the previously default location is automatically unset or whether this call fails if one already exists.

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 action is stated in a single front-loaded sentence, with scope and version on separate lines that are easy to scan. The HTTP line is largely boilerplate for an agent, but it does not bloat the definition.

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 one-parameter, annotated, non-destructive mutation, most of what an agent needs is present. The remaining gap is the side effect on the existing default location, which materially affects whether the call should be made blindly, and there is no output schema to answer it.

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?

There is only one parameter (id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it. The wording "a location" plus the {id} path template confirms intent but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

"Mark a location as the default one" is a specific verb plus resource, and the endpoint PATCH /locations/{id}/chosen-as-default reinforces the single, unambiguous effect. It is distinguishable from locations_update only by inference from the name, but the stated effect is clear enough on its own.

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 never says when to reach for this instead of tiendanube_locations_update, nor any precondition such as having at least one other location to demote. The required scope write_locations is auth context, not usage guidance, so an agent must guess at the selection criteria.

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