Pin a subscriber's location

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully enumerates the blast radius (delivery, audience membership, published data, irreversible state) and the confirm requirement, but this reads as generic destructive-op boilerplate that partly duplicates the confirm parameter's own schema description.

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 the action front-loaded and the risk warning immediately after; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves the usage gaps noted above.

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 6-parameter destructive tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the risk profile and confirm requirement but omits what pinning means versus updating, when to choose it, and how the three body-input options relate. Minimum viable but with clear gaps.

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 83%, so the schema already documents the parameters well. The description only echoes the confirm=true requirement and adds no syntax, format, or relationship detail (e.g., payload vs location vs payload_file mutual exclusion) 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?

"Pin a subscriber's location" states a verb and resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the title and adds no detail. It does not distinguish pinning from the sibling tools update_subscriber_location or delete_subscriber_location, so an agent cannot tell why it would pick this over those without opening the schema.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, despite three closely related location tools existing. The only guidance is the confirm=true prerequisite, which is a rule rather than a routing hint.

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