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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: door state values, normal vs. secret door behavior, and the token-move interaction. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is moderately detailed but well-structured: purpose, wallId source, state legend, and a concrete workflow caveat. It is front-loaded and scannable, though the state-value sentence partially duplicates the parameter schema.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides all essential invocation context: where wallId comes from, what states exist, and when to use this tool over token-move. Return values and failure modes are not covered, but they are not critical here.

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 description need not compensate for missing parameter docs. It does add meaningful context for wallId (how to obtain it and the door=1/door=2 distinction), but most parameter details are already fully captured in the schema.

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 first sentence names exact actions (open, close, lock) and the exact resource (a door on the scene), which clearly distinguishes it from the many actor, token, combat, and scene-management siblings. It also connects wallId to scene-get, making the target 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?

Provides explicit when/when-not guidance: unlock with scene-set-door-state before token-move with canOpenDoors=true, and warns that secret doors cannot be opened by token-move at all. This directly routes the agent to the correct tool in the right sequence.

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