Replace an OpenWISP location's details by UUID or ID using a PUT request, so network infrastructure records stay accurate.
[Category: Geo & Locations] Replace location details. (HTTP PUT /api/v1/controller/location/{pk}/)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pk | Yes | Location UUID or ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does 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 HTTP PUT and the word 'Replace', suggesting a full overwrite (destructive), but does not describe permissions, side effects, what gets destroyed, or the absence of a response body. This is thin behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.
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 very short and front-loads the action ('Replace location details'), with the endpoint in parentheses. Every element earns its place, though the brevity contributes to the overall under-specification.
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 PUT update operation whose schema contains only an identifier, the description is critically incomplete: it does not explain how to supply the new location details or what fields are expected. With no annotations, no output schema, and no payload parameters, the description leaves the agent unable to invoke the tool correctly.
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 for the single pk parameter is 100%, so the baseline would be 3. However, the description claims to 'Replace location details' while the schema provides no parameters for those details, leaving the required request body unexplained. The description fails to clarify this gap and arguably adds confusion.
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 ('Replace') and resource ('location details'), and the HTTP PUT endpoint clarifies the operation type. It does not explicitly distinguish from other location-related update tools like openwisp_update_device_location, but the resource name is clear enough.
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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives mentioned, and no prerequisites. The only hint is the word 'Replace' implying full replacement, but the description offers no explicit direction on choosing this tool over siblings such as openwisp_create_location or openwisp_patch_* equivalents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.