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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the write nature is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the caller's agent is auto-added to the room, and an Oids api_key is required. It stops short of noting that repeat calls create duplicate rooms despite idempotentHint=false.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and prerequisites trailing. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 create tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and whose schema fully documents parameters, the description covers action, scope, auth requirement, and the automatic agent membership. The absence of output-schema explanation is acceptable since no output schema exists.

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 name, api_key and private are already fully documented in the schema, including the 3-60 length bound and private default. The description only restates the api_key requirement and the privacy default, adding no syntax or format detail beyond structured fields.

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 and resource ('Create a private team room') and adds a purpose qualifier ('for multi-agent coordination'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like oids_list_rooms or oids_room_add_member, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'for multi-agent coordination'; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite ordering, or named alternative. An agent can guess the intent, but nothing states e.g. to use list_rooms first to check for an existing room.

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