PATCH /locations/{id}

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and non-read-only, so the description's silence on safety is partly covered. However, it adds nothing beyond them: it does not say what a partial update changes, that omitted fields are preserved, that the confirm field may be required, or any auth/permission context.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence ('Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation locationsid') is boilerplate filler that earns no place and could have been replaced with useful content.

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 destructive mutation with a 12-field nested body and only 33% schema coverage, the description should explain at minimum what can be modified and the confirm behavior. It supplies neither, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema.

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 adds no parameter meaning at all. The nested body object exposes 12 updatable fields (zip, city, parent_id, manager_id, etc.) that are undocumented in both schema and description, and the confirm guard is not mentioned.

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 verb and resource ('partially updates a location'), which is clearer than the bare HTTP method in the title. But it is largely a restatement of the name/title and offers no differentiation from siblings like snipeit_gen_locationsid_2 or snipeit_get_location.

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 partial-update tool versus a full PUT, versus the raw request tool, or versus the other locations endpoints. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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