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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the author-only authorization requirement, which is valuable, but says nothing about whether the patch is a partial merge or a full replace, what happens to unlisted fields, whether the edit is reversible, or what errors occur on unauthorized attempts.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, with the authorization constraint in the middle. The terseness costs clarity on 'room', but there is essentially no wasted wording.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with a nested free-form patch object, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition covers the core action and the authorization rule but leaves key gaps: the patch field vocabulary, the meaning of room, and the result of an edit. Adequate but not sufficient for confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It conveys partial-update semantics for 'patch' ('fields to change') but the allowed field vocabulary is undocumented since additionalProperties is unconstrained. 'Optional room' never explains what room means — a context/scope, or a relocation target — and its allowed values (commons or r_ ids) are invisible outside the schema pattern.

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: 'Edit your own entity by id with a patch of the fields to change.' The ownership scoping ('your own entity') plus author restriction separates it from sibling mutation tools like world_place or world_remove, though no sibling is named.

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?

'Only the author may edit' gives a real precondition, and 'Optional room' signals an optional scoping parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as creating, placing, or removing entities. Usage must be inferred from the verb.

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