cvcue_create_location

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it discloses the important write-flag requirement and the parent-child constraint, which is real added value. It omits other mutation-relevant behavior: what happens on duplicate names, whether the call is idempotent, permission/error behavior, and what identifier is returned. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core action is stated first and the prerequisite follows. Nothing is repeated from the schema or padded.

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?

With a fully described five-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is created, the parent requirement, and the write gate. The only real omission is what the caller gets back (e.g., the new location id), which matters for chaining into follow-up calls.

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%, so every parameter including the location_type enumeration values and timezone default is already documented structurally. The description only reinforces parent_id via "under a parent" and adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Create a folder or floor location under a parent" names a specific verb (create), the resource (location), and the two supported subtypes, which cleanly separates it from cvcue_list_locations, cvcue_get_location, and cvcue_delete_location. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 write-gate prerequisite (CVCUE_ENABLE_WRITES=true) is genuine usage guidance a caller must satisfy before invoking. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this versus other location tools, no note on what to do if the parent is not a folder, and no mention of alternatives.

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