set_location_intent

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

The description notes that the criterion is 'updated in place' and mentions the default, but with annotations lacking destructive hint, it could more explicitly state it's a write operation that modifies campaign settings. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 highly concise: one sentence for purpose and one for behavioral context/usage hint. No redundant information.

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?

The description covers the main action, parameter options, default condition, and a usage hint. With output schema present, it is sufficiently complete for a simple update tool, though it could mention error conditions.

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 coverage, the schema already describes both parameters well. The description adds context about the default value and the deprecated option, but does not fundamentally enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 action ('Set') and the resource ('location intent' for a campaign). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing the read counterpart get_location_intent and explaining the default value.

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 explicitly advises to read the current value first with get_location_intent, providing a clear usage flow. However, it does not mention circumstances where this tool should not be used or alternatives.

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