update_location

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

The destructiveHint annotation is already present, so the core mutation risk is disclosed. The description adds valuable behavioral information beyond that: 'Only provided fields are updated — omitted fields remain unchanged,' which clarifies the partial-update semantics and prevents the agent from assuming a full replacement.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by the critical partial-update constraint. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important 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?

For a simple update tool with six scalar parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it does, when to use it, and its partial-update rule. It does not mention return values, but that is not mandated since there is no output schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to call correctly.

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 all six parameters are individually documented. The description adds general guidance by tying parameters to use cases (address, name, coordinates) but does not enrich each parameter's meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing location's details.' It also provides concrete use cases (correct addresses, rename locations, update coordinates) that distinguish it from sibling tools like create_location and delete_location without needing to reference them explicitly.

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 clear context on when to use the tool ('Use this to correct addresses, rename locations, or update coordinates') and adds the partial-update behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the sibling list makes this evident.

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