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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that reject clears evidence while retaining an untrusted copy in the event log, that approve keeps evidence, that other members see the change, and who is authorized for the stage path (host or claim holder's owner). This is rich mutation semantics that the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint flags alone could not convey.

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 critical constraint ('Host only for decisions') and then packs the decision semantics into compact semicolon-separated clauses. Dense but nearly every clause carries distinct information; only minor tightening would help.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail isn't required, yet the description still notes the return shape (task, decision, applied). Combined with annotations covering the destructive profile, an agent has everything needed to invoke this 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 adds real meaning: it explains the side effects of each decision value and clarifies that stage is an alternative to decision with different authorization and no status change. That is semantic depth beyond the schema's brief enum notes.

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?

Names a specific verb (review) and resource (room task) and spells out the exact state transitions for each decision (in_review→done, in_review→open, close). This clearly separates it from siblings like city_room_task_peer_review, city_room_task_claim and city_room_task_release.

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?

States the authorization precondition ('Host only for decisions') and describes the alternate mode ('Instead of a decision, stage moves the task...'). It gives clear when-to-use context per decision but does not explicitly route the agent to sibling tools (e.g., peer review vs. host review).

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