[EN] Allow or forbid others from forking (copying) a house (needs edit_token). / 他者がこの物件をフォーク (コピー) できるかを切り替える。edit_token が必要。forkable=false で他者のコピー作成を禁止 (既定は全て可)。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | 物件 slug (必須) | |
| forkable | Yes | true=フォーク可 (既定) / false=フォーク不可 | |
| edit_token | Yes | create_house が返した edit_token (必須) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses that the tool toggles forkability, requires an edit_token (auth), and notes the default state. This is sufficient for a simple boolean toggle.
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 extremely concise: two bilingual sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, immediately informing the agent.
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 simplicity (3 required params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers everything needed: purpose, required parameters, effect, and default. It is complete.
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 descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of forkable (allow/forbid), the requirement for edit_token, and the default behavior, going beyond the schema.
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 the verb 'allow or forbid' and the resource 'forking a house', making the purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes from sibling tools as none deal with forking.
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 mentions the requirement for an edit_token and the default behavior (forkable=true), giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some potential overlap exists (e.g., get_site_context and get_houki_rules both provide site conditions, and set_site_context vs. upsert_zoning_rule could be confused). Overall, descriptions help disambiguate.
Tools predominantly use a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_house, update_house, set_visibility). A few outliers like houki_check and whoami break the pattern, but naming is mostly consistent.
29 tools is heavy but covers a broad domain (house design, construction, catalog, contractors, admin). Some tools are niche (e.g., list_incomplete_addresses, set_forkable), but each serves a clear purpose. Could be streamlined.
Core operations for house lifecycle (create, read, update, check) are present. Lacks explicit delete/archive for houses (only set_visibility), and no tool to update site context directly (only set via set_site_context). Minor gaps but domain is well-covered.