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

Annotation only gives readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does so well: it discloses that the operation merely records intent, that the lock state is unchanged, and that no authority is granted. That is meaningful negative-effect disclosure beyond the annotation, though it says nothing about what is created, idempotency, or the response.

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 plus a prerequisite tag, with the precondition front-loaded. 'Does not admit you' and 'does not grant the missing authority' are mildly redundant restatements, but there is no padding.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the prerequisite chain, the effect (records intent), and the non-effects (no admission, no authority, lock unchanged). An agent has enough to call it correctly; only the return value and repeat-call behavior are unaddressed.

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%, with room_id, matter_id, and actor_token all documented in the schema including their source tools. The description adds no syntax, format, or conditional detail beyond that, 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 and resource: 'Record that you want a room.' It also draws a clear boundary against adjacent operations by saying the lock does not change and it does not admit the caller, which separates it from enter_room and request_capability. It stops short of naming those siblings outright, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 bracketed prerequisite chain '[NEEDS ADMISSION: enroll, then atlas.bind_actor]' names the exact tools that must run first, which is unusually actionable usage guidance. It does not spell out the inverse condition (when not to call this) beyond the implicit 'if you are not admitted, do that first.'

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