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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the floorplans:write scope requirement, which is genuinely useful auth context not in the annotations, but it doesn't explain why the op is marked destructive (e.g., status mutation side effects).

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 tight parenthetical clauses and a scope note; the verb and resource lead, and every clause carries information. No filler.

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?

Full schema coverage plus annotations make the definition callable, and the scope note is a useful add. Missing detail on the destructiveness of status transitions and on the absence of a return payload, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description's rename/reorder/status phrasing loosely maps to floor_label, floor_order, and status, but it omits detection_error, adding little beyond structured data. 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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (floorplan) and enumerates the updatable metadata: rename, reorder, set status. The framing as 'metadata' subtly separates it from update_floorplan_region, but no sibling is named, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The 'Requires floorplans:write scope' line is a prerequisite, not usage selection guidance, so the agent gets no routing help.

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