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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds important context annotations cannot: it costs credits, exact price is retrievable via get_cost: true, and the change persists so future generations follow the new style. It doesn't quantify credit cost or describe reversibility, but that's largely covered by the get_cost escape hatch.

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-loaded and information-dense, but the em-dash interruptions and parenthetical asides ('costs credits — exact price via get_cost: true', the long repair-path clause) make it denser than needed for a three-parameter tool. Every sentence earns its place, but the structure is a bit tangled.

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 mutation with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description sufficiently covers cost, persistence of the change, and the repair use case. Return values aren't explained, but with no output schema and full param coverage, the remaining gap is minor.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by explaining the get_cost parameter's purpose in practice ('Name it to the person before the real run') and by situating 'wish' as the agent's prose instruction, adding workflow meaning the raw schema does not.

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?

Specific verb (restyle) + resource (existing board/location) with an illustrative example ('the same flat, twenty years later') that pins down what restyling means. It also distinguishes itself from lab_create_location and lab_enrich_location_prefix by describing the repair-path use case and the create sibling by name.

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 two clear when-to-use conditions: general restyling and the specific repair path when lab_create_location returned prefix_generated: false. It doesn't state when NOT to use it (e.g., to create a brand-new place you'd use lab_create_location), so an agent still has to infer the exclusion.

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