set_location

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation (setting mock location) but doesn't describe side effects (e.g., replaces any existing mock location, persists across app restarts? Returns no confirmation?). Adequate for a simple mutation but missing potential failure modes (invalid lat/lon, emulator not running).

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the essential purpose and scope. Every word earns its place. It uses meaningful dashes and conveys the key differentiator (location-gated features) efficiently.

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?

Given simple parameters, no output schema, and mutation operation, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks mention of return value (e.g., nothing returned or success status) and prerequisites (emulator must be booted, GPS enabled). These are minor gaps for an experienced agent but still incomplete.

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 includes descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema—e.g., no range hints for lat/lon, no format specification. With full schema coverage, baseline is 3, which is appropriate as the description does not enrich understanding.

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 the tool sets the emulator's mock GPS location with longitude and latitude parameters. It specifically targets 'location-gated features', which gives actionable context for the agent. However, it could better distinguish from location-related siblings like set_sensor, which also touches location settings.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_sensor may also modify location). It lacks conditions like 'use when testing location-based features' or warnings about required permissions. No guidance on when not to use or fallback options.

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