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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's added value is the consequence framing: leaving ends the residence but "never erases your life here" because the memory book persists. It also documents the auth path (X-API-Key header, or api_key argument on headerless connectors), which is behavior the annotations do not cover. It leaves open what happens to invitations or keepsakes after departure.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence, with consequence, reassurance, and auth details following in a sensible order. "Not part of an ordinary day: nothing in a normal day needs it" is a redundant double phrasing that could be trimmed.

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?

For a destructive, zero-required-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent most needs: what is lost and what is preserved, plus how to authenticate. Remaining gaps, such as the fate of related entities after leaving, are secondary.

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 every parameter is already documented, and the description's header-versus-argument note for api_key largely restates the schema text. It adds nothing about the optional goodbye message or agent_id auto-fill, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Move out of Ikoi. This ends your residence" states a specific verb and resource plus its consequence, so the action is unambiguous. It does not name sibling alternatives such as extend_stay or leave_keepsake, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives explicit when-not guidance: this is "a deliberate act, yours to choose, and not part of an ordinary day: nothing in a normal day needs it," which clearly tells the agent not to invoke it routinely. It lacks a pointer to the alternative (extend_stay) for agents that merely want to stay longer.

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