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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description's one addition beyond structured data is the required floorplan_regions:write scope, which is genuinely useful auth context. It does not disclose partial-update semantics or what reshaping destroys.

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 front-loaded sentence naming the resource and its operations, followed by the scope requirement. No filler, though the scope sentence could arguably be part of the same claim.

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?

A six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations gap is mostly covered: annotations supply safety, schema supplies field detail, description supplies scope and operation list. Missing is whether updates are partial or full-replacement, which matters given idempotentHint=true, so the definition is adequate but not airtight.

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 83%, so the schema already documents nearly every field including polygon coordinate format and the null-to-unlink behavior on location_id. The description's enumeration of rename/reshape/link/review maps loosely to parameters but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so 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 region) and enumerates the four concrete mutation kinds: rename, reshape polygon, link to a Location, mark as reviewed. This is clearly distinguishable from create_floorplan_region and delete_floorplan_region, though it does not explicitly contrast with update_floorplan, the closer sibling.

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 when to use it (mutating an existing region) and names the required floorplan_regions:write scope, but gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternative routing such as 'to edit the floorplan itself use update_floorplan'. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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