openwisp_update_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 PUT (implying a full replacement/idempotent assignment) and the endpoint path, which is useful, but says nothing about required permissions, whether the assignment replaces or adds, or side effects on device config.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the category tag and endpoint parenthetical; the purpose is front-loaded and nothing is wasted. Slightly formulaic, but efficient.

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?

The parameter contract is fully documented via the schema and there is no output schema to explain, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations the description omits auth/permission and result-behavior context an agent would want.

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% (both id and location documented as UUID or ID), so the schema already does the explaining. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3.

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 (Update) plus the exact resource (the location assigned to a device), and the HTTP endpoint confirms the operation. It distinguishes itself by verb from the sibling family openwisp_create/get/delete_device_location, though it does not call out those siblings by name.

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 category label "Geo & Locations" gives weak implied context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools such as openwisp_update_device_coordinates or openwisp_update_location.

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