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

No annotations exist, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that references are live (resolved at view time, no duplication), details the two source types and their ref formats, and mentions the mandatory edit_token permission.

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 front-loaded with the main action and then provides details. It is bilingual, which may be necessary, but adds some length. Each sentence earns its place, though slight redundancy could be trimmed.

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 5 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description explains the core behavior, source types, permission, and resolution mechanism. It covers most essential context, though error handling or edge cases are omitted.

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%, yet the description adds significant value: examples for ref (biruwa, living), expands source enum meanings, explains edit_token provenance, and clarifies slug and room roles.

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 clearly states this tool places a *live reference* into a house, not a copy, and distinguishes two source types (mu and device). It uses specific verbs and resources, making the purpose unmistakable and differentiating it from siblings like create_product.

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 indicates when to use (to place a live reference, requires edit_token) and implies alternatives (not a copy). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or reference to sibling tools like create_product for actual copies.

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