openwisp_create_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 states the HTTP method (POST) and endpoint, which is useful, but doesn't say what happens on success, whether the operation requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what errors may occur (e.g., name conflicts), or whether creating a location has side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with a category tag and endpoint, front-loaded with the core action. It is efficient and contains no waste, though the category tag adds little value for an agent that already knows the tool name.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a complex sibling landscape, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (success response, created ID), permissions needed, or how it relates to other location creation and management tools. It meets the bare minimum of stating what the tool does but leaves the agent without enough context to call it confidently in ambiguous situations.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a controller location.' This is clear and distinct from siblings like openwisp_get_location, openwisp_update_location, and openwisp_list_locations. However, it doesn't differentiate from openwisp_create_device_location, which is a separate resource, and offers no additional context about what a controller location is relative to other location types.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The many location-related siblings (openwisp_create_device_location, openwisp_update_location, etc.) make explicit routing important, but the description provides none. It implies creation but doesn't state prerequisites or when this should be chosen over other location operations.

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