Locations Update

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the PUT endpoint, the required write_locations scope, and the API version. It omits one important behavioral detail for an update tool — whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, and how additional_fields is merged relative to named fields.

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, then endpoint, scope, and version as scannable metadata. Every line carries information an agent can act on; nothing is padding.

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?

With five parameters at full schema coverage and no output schema, the description needn't explain return values, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What is still missing is update semantics (partial vs full replacement) and any note on the response, which matters for a tool with an additional_fields escape hatch.

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%: every parameter, including the i18n name object, the nested address shape, and the additional_fields merge behavior, is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what is already structured, so the baseline of 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 ('Update a location') and pins the exact HTTP operation. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like tiendanube_locations_set_default or tiendanube_locations_update_priorities, which also mutate a location, nor does it hint at which fields are editable.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the general field-edit tool versus the specialized set_default/update_priorities siblings.

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