snipeit_gen_locations_3Update an existing Snipe-IT location by ID with fields such as name, address, parent, company, and manager to keep location records accurate.
PUT /locations/{id}: Updates a location. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation locations-3.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| body | No | ||
| confirm | No | Required when SNIPEIT_CONFIRM_WRITES=true. Exact string "YES" to apply this write. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'updates': it does not explain whether the body replaces or merges fields, what permissions are needed, whether the confirm parameter is required, or what side effects occur.
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 short but includes generated boilerplate ('Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation locations-3') that adds no value for an agent. It is under-specified rather than concise: there is no front-loaded guidance beyond the endpoint path.
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 a destructive mutation with a nested body object, incomplete parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It omits confirmation requirements, body semantics, and any behavioral detail an agent would need to invoke this tool safely and 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 description coverage is only 33%, and the description does not explain the id, body, or confirm parameters at all. The nested body schema has many undocumented fields such as parent_id, manager_id, company_id, and currency, and the description does nothing to compensate for that gap.
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 says it updates a location by id, which is a clear verb+resource, but it essentially restates the endpoint path and title rather than distinguishing this tool's scope from sibling location tools such as snipeit_gen_locationsid or snipeit_gen_locationsid_2. It is minimally understandable but vague about what kind of update it performs.
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, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. 'Updates a location' implies a mutation but leaves the agent to infer that this is the full-update sibling to other location tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.