update_location

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool updates an existing location and returns a JSON string with the updated location, which is helpful. However, it does not explain whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared (partial vs. full update), what permissions are required, or what side effects may occur, leaving important mutation behavior ambiguous.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose statement followed by an Args section and a Returns section. It contains no obvious filler, but the parameter list is long and somewhat mechanical; it earns its place because it documents all 12 parameters, though it could be more compact.

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 the 12-parameter complexity and the absence of annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it names all parameters, labels them as new values, and states the return type. The main gap is the lack of partial-update semantics and validation behavior, which are critical for an update tool with many optional fields, so the picture is not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists every parameter with a one-line explanation (e.g., 'New region/state ID'), adding some meaning beyond the schema titles. Still, most explanations closely mirror the property names, and the description does not clarify constraints, formats, or the exact semantics of fields like 'primary.'

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 opens with 'Update an existing location,' a clear verb and resource that distinguishes it from create/delete/get tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as create_location or delete_location, relying instead on the tool name and the verb 'update.'

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like create_location, delete_location, or search_locations. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or scenario-based instructions; the only implied usage is 'when you want to modify a location,' which must be inferred.

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