Locations Update Priorities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context: the required OAuth scope and the API version. However, it does not state whether the provided list fully replaces the existing ordering or merges with it, which is the key behavioral question for a priority-setting call.

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 key semantic is front-loaded in sentence one, followed by the endpoint, scope, and version as compact metadata. No filler sentences; the only inefficiency is that the metadata block is not something an agent strictly needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers endpoint, scope, and version. It falls short on the one thing that matters most: whether the priorities list is a full replacement or a partial update, which affects how an agent must construct the payload.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already carries the example format [{id: <location_id>, priority: 0}, ...]. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, 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?

The first line states a specific verb and resource: setting the order in which locations deduct stock. It is clearly distinct from siblings like locations_update or locations_set_default, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly. Purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage through the required scope write_locations and the endpoint path, but never says when to call this instead of tiendanube_locations_update or tiendanube_locations_set_default. An agent must infer the distinction from the sibling names alone.

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