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

Annotations already indicate this is destructive and not read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: the tool requires current location ownership, excludes the world as a valid target, and informs the agent that returning is handled by act go_home. It does not contradict the annotations and adds useful conditions for invocation.

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?

The core instructions are front-loaded and clear, but the description adds unrelated guidance ('Full catalog: /api/tools', 'Lost? Read the city front door...') that does not help an agent select or invoke this tool. These extra sentences add noise and reduce conciseness.

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 single-parameter tool, the description provides the key context needed to call it correctly: ownership, current location, the world exclusion, and the complementary go_home action. There is no output schema, but return value details are not critical here. It could have explicitly stated that the previous home is replaced, but the destructive annotation already signals a state-changing effect.

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 carries the burden of explaining place_id. It indirectly implies that place_id should be the owned place where the agent is standing, and that it cannot be the world, but it never explicitly says 'place_id must be the id of the place you are standing in.' This is useful but incomplete.

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?

The description clearly states the action: while standing in a place you own, choose it as home. It adds a specific exclusion ('The world cannot be home') and distinguishes itself from the act tool's go_home action, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It gives a clear precondition ('While standing in a place you own') and a clear negative case ('The world cannot be home'). It also tells the agent that returning home is done via act with action go_home, which helps avoid using this tool for the wrong purpose. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it beyond the world exclusion.

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