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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds useful domain behavior beyond that: the locked-door two-step interaction and the secret-door limitation. It does not describe failure modes (e.g. invalid wallId) but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then layers wall-ID sourcing, state encoding, and the locked/secret-door caveats. Dense but each clause carries information; the state enumeration slightly overlaps the 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?

With no output schema but full annotation and parameter coverage, the description supplies the interaction rules an agent needs (unlocking sequence, secret-door handling). Remaining gaps are minor since annotations carry the safety profile.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds sourcing context for wallId (from scene-get → walls[] with door=1/2) that the schema only partially captures. State meanings are duplicated from the schema, so the added value is modest.

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 set (open/close/lock) and resource (a door), and immediately distinguishes itself from the token-move sibling path for door handling. An agent can identify exactly what action this performs without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit procedural guidance: to open a locked door, call scene-set-door-state(wallId, 0) then token-move with canOpenDoors=true, and notes secret doors never open via token-move so their state must be set here. This names the alternative tool and the condition that selects each path.

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