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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the result is saved even when issues exist, mentions the key requirement, notes that beispiel-wohnzimmer is not saved, and says the response is a re-checked plan image. This is strong context, though it does not discuss reversibility or failure modes.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the action and result, the second covers parameter usage, and the third covers authentication and persistence. Key information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the return value, side effects, authentication, and the main operation modes. The schema covers individual parameter details, and the description supplies the coordination rules needed to call the tool correctly.

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. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining operational constraints: x and y must be sent together, coordinates are in meters, and remove true means x/y/rot are ignored. This helps agents invoke the parameters correctly.

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 states specific operations ('Moves, rotates or removes one piece in the saved layout') and the result ('returns the re-checked plan as an image with issues'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like place_furniture, which adds new furniture, and check_plan, which only checks the plan.

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 description gives concrete invocation guidance: send x and y together, use rot for rotation, or remove true; it also clarifies the key requirement for own projects vs free usage on beispiel-wohnzimmer. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the usage context is clear enough.

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