weather_set_location

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

Annotations are limited to readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavior beyond that: only location settings are persisted, at most three locations are allowed, multiple geocoding matches are not saved until a candidate_id is supplied, and make_default=true changes how later weather_get calls resolve the alias. This is high-value context.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the core action, persistence constraint, concrete example, capacity limit, alias semantics, default behavior, geocoding flow, and update routing. It is dense but not bloated, and it front-loads the most important purpose.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and a geocoding disambiguation workflow, the description covers save semantics, the 'at most three' constraint, candidate selection, default selection behavior, and modification routing. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without needing structured docs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all six parameters. It explains alias, place_name, additional_aliases, make_default, and candidate_id clearly, and gives a concrete example including country_code=JP. The only minor gap is that country_code behavior is implied via the example rather than explicitly described.

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 states a concrete action, 'Add a location requested by the user,' with the resource being a weather location. It clearly distinguishes this creation-oriented tool from siblings like weather_list_locations, weather_search_places, weather_remove_location, and weather_get, and explicitly points to weather_update_location for modifications.

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?

It gives practical routing guidance: use weather_update_location to modify an existing location, and describes the geocoding disambiguation flow with candidate_id when multiple matches are returned. It does not fully spell out when weather_search_places should be used first, but the context is clear enough from the description and sibling names.

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