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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that geocoding is re-run, that the address becomes locked after operator acceptance, and that publishImmediately can trigger auto-publish/fund ladder with side effects (direct tasks publish immediately, escrow tasks auto-fund or return auto_publish_deferred with next_actions). This goes well beyond the simple idempotentHint/destructiveHint flags, and no contradictions exist.

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 dense but well-structured: a clear lead sentence, then precondition, lock warning, use case, publishImmediately behavior, and a practical summary. Every sentence earns its place, though the publishImmediately explanation is a bit lengthy. It remains readable and front-loaded with the primary 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 the tool's complexity (preconditions, status restrictions, publishing side effects, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: return fields, geocoding re-run, status requirements, lock behavior, publish/fund ladder, authentication, and a concrete example of when to use it. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool safely and 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description enriches key parameters: it explains publishImmediately's auto-publish/fund ladder, recommends providing 'house number and postal code' for locationAddress to get a rooftop match, and clarifies that locationLatitude/Longitude are optional overrides. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema definitions, though not every parameter is individually expanded.

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 explicitly states the action: 'Update the location of a Draft task' with specific behavior 'Re-runs geocoding and returns new resolvedLocation, geocodingConfidence, and location_warnings.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by citing the use case for correcting location_warnings/low-confidence matches and the publishImmediately flow that parallels dispatch_physical_task.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when the initial dispatch returned location_warnings or low confidence' and when not to use: 'Once an operator has accepted the task, the address is locked — cancel the task and recreate it.' It also states the precondition (Draft or Published status) and the publishImmediately option for correcting a typo and going live in a single call.

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