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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description contributes the 'Requires asset_placements:write scope' authorization requirement, which is genuinely useful context not present in structured fields. However, it does not explain what the destructiveHint actually destroys (e.g., whether the previous placement is discarded) or whether unset fields are preserved.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the action stated first and the permission requirement second. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries information.

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 5-param mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the essential auth scope and the move semantics. It is nearly complete, though a note on what happens to the prior placement (given destructiveHint=true) would close the remaining gap.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including region_id's 'set to null to clear' semantics. The description's mention of coordinates and floorplan adds nothing beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Move an asset placement') plus the two target dimensions (coordinates, floorplan), so an agent can distinguish it from create_asset_placement or update_asset_placement-adjacent tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling for disambiguation, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 says what the tool does but gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites beyond scope, and no pointer to alternatives (e.g., create_asset_placement for initial placement or delete_asset_placement for removal). The agent must infer the use case from the verb alone.

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