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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses key behavioral traits: complete replacement of the openings list, windows having no hinge, door-swing clearance not being checked until openings exist, and potential new issues in saved layouts. It also notes the key requirement and exclusion of beispiel-wohnzimmer, adding significant value beyond structured data.

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 three sentences, front-loading the core behavior and then adding critical conditions and side effects. No filler; every sentence earns its place, covering scope, constraints, and post-conditions efficiently.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested openings array) and absence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: prerequisites (key), scope (full replacement), special cases (windows, clearance), side effects (new issues, run check_plan), and availability restrictions (beispiel-wohnzimmer). It is complete for correct invocation.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter, including the 'openings' array's replacement semantics and the hinge parameter's door-only constraint. The description mostly repeats these details (e.g., 'Windows have no hinge') rather than adding new meaning, so it aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Replaces') and resource ('full openings list of a project you created'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing solely on doors and windows. It also clarifies the scope (full replacement, empty list removes all), which is 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?

The description provides clear usage conditions: it requires a key, is not available on beispiel-wohnzimmer, and only applies to projects the user created. It also implies when to use it (when setting doors/windows) and directs the agent to run check_plan afterwards, though it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like place_furniture.

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