manage_named_locations

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations. While annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, destructive tool, the description clarifies the specific domain (Conditional Access) and resource types (IP ranges, country/region locations) being managed. This helps the agent understand what kind of destructive operations might occur (e.g., modifying access control configurations). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's scope and purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and includes specific examples that add value. Every element earns its place, making it highly concise yet informative.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, destructive operations) and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It clearly defines what the tool manages but doesn't address behavioral aspects like error conditions, permissions required, or what the tool returns. With annotations covering safety profile and schema covering parameters, the description provides a solid foundation but could better prepare the agent for invocation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. However, it does provide high-level context about what 'named locations' encompass, which helps frame the parameter usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('manage') and resources ('Conditional Access named locations'), including concrete examples ('IP address ranges and country/region locations') and the functional context ('location-based access control'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from its many siblings by focusing specifically on named locations rather than other Conditional Access or security management aspects.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions 'Conditional Access named locations,' it doesn't clarify whether this is the primary tool for this function or how it relates to sibling tools like 'manage_conditional_access_policies' or other security management tools. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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