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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already convey. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe, repeatable mutation. However, the description does not disclose important operational details such as whether this is a partial update (PATCH-like) or a full replacement, what happens to omitted fields, or potential error conditions. The statement is purely functional and does not enrich the agent's understanding of the tool's runtime behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no extraneous filler. It is appropriately sized for the task and easy to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, output schema present, annotations available), the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It clearly identifies the operation and resource, and the schema/annotations cover parameter details and safety traits. However, it does not explain the update semantics (e.g., whether unprovided fields are left unchanged or reset), what the response contains, or edge cases like nonexistent IDs. These are clear gaps that prevent a higher score.

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%, with every parameter (id, name, phone, address, logoUrl, isActive, latitude, longitude, sortOrder, acceptsOrders) having its own description. The tool description merely references updating 'by ID', adding no new meaning to the structured schema. Since the schema already carries the explanatory burden, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Update an existing shop outlet/location by ID.' It uses a specific verb ('update') with a well-defined resource ('outlet/location') and identifies the key input (ID). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_outlet and list_outlets.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., 'use create_outlet first to obtain an ID'), scenarios where this tool is preferred, or cases where a different tool should be used. The phrasing 'by ID' implies an existing outlet, but no explicit usage direction is given.

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