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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely useful non-annotation detail – the required floorplans:write scope – but does not disclose what a metadata update overwrites or any 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?

A single efficient sentence; the purpose is front-loaded and the scope prerequisite is appended without waste. Could be marginally sharper but 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?

For a 5-param mutation tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema needed, the description supplies purpose plus the auth prerequisite. The main omission is any timing/validation context around status transitions, but overall it is sufficient to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents id, status, floor_label, floor_order, and detection_error. The description's parenthetical (rename, reorder, set status) maps to those fields but adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond the schema – 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 clear verb+resource ("Update floorplan metadata") and disambiguates the operation with parenthetical examples (rename floor, reorder, set status), which distinguishes it from sibling update_floorplan_region. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it earns 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 implies usage via the listed operations and adds a prerequisite ("Requires floorplans:write scope"), but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no route to alternatives like update_floorplan_region. Implied usage only.

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