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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real value by disclosing that it writes stored state, is not safe to repeat blindly, that the record is of the knock (not the stay), is handles rather than a count, and expires after fifteen minutes. Strong behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loads the action, then adds two compact clarifying clauses and a write warning. Nothing is wasted, though the 'handles, never a count' line is slightly oblique phrasing.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does a decent job on write semantics and lifetime. However, the entirely undocumented 'secret' parameter and the absence of any usage/alternative guidance leave gaps for an agent deciding when and how to call it.

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?

There is one parameter ('secret') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains its role, format, or whether it is required. With the schema entirely silent, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: putting yourself on the porch's recently-knocked list for fifteen minutes. The phrase 'without saying anything' implicitly distinguishes it from the write-a-message sibling porch_say, though no sibling is named 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?

Conveys the action and its ephemeral nature, so an agent can infer this is a lightweight presence signal rather than a message. But it never states when to choose this over porch_say, porch_read, or doorbell, leaving usage context implied.

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