openwisp_create_device_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. It discloses the HTTP verb/path (PUT), which implies idempotent overwrite semantics, but says nothing about required permissions, what happens if the device already has a location, or whether the assignment is reversible.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The bracketed category prefix is mild overhead but the operational statement leads.

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 two-parameter assignment tool with a complete schema and no output schema, the description is just barely adequate. It omits the effect on any pre-existing location assignment and the response shape, which an agent would need to reason about the outcome.

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% ('Device UUID or ID', 'Location UUID or ID'), so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no format, ordering, or constraint detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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: 'Assign a location object to a device,' plus the concrete endpoint. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling openwisp_update_device_location, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus openwisp_update_device_location or openwisp_get_device_location, and no prerequisites (e.g. the device and location must already exist). The category tag is the only organizational cue.

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