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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the destructive full-replacement behavior, that an empty list removes all openings, that windows have no hinge, that door-swing clearance is only checked once openings exist, and that saved layouts may gain new issues. This is exemplary for a mutating tool.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: replacement semantics, empty-list behavior, hinge constraint, downstream side effects, and access prerequisites. The most important behavior is front-loaded, and the description is compact with no filler.

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 full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool replaces, side effects on layout validation, post-invocation guidance, and access constraints. No critical behavioral gap remains.

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 schema already documents key, project, and openings in detail. The description adds useful context about the list being a full replacement and that an empty list clears all openings, but it does not add substantial per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Replaces the full openings list of a project you created.' This goes beyond the title by clarifying that the tool operates on the entire openings list, not individual doors or windows, and distinguishes it from furniture placement or plan-checking siblings.

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 clear context: it applies to projects you created, requires a key, is unavailable on beispiel-wohnzimmer, and advises running check_plan afterward. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it beyond the beispiel restriction, which keeps it from a 5.

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