[EN] Toggle a house's public listing on/off (needs edit_token). / 物件の掲載/非掲載を切り替える。edit_token (create_house の返り値) が必要。private=true で物件一覧から非掲載 (直リンクは残る)。進化ループの低スコア物件の淘汰などに使う。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | 物件 slug (必須) | |
| private | Yes | true=非掲載 / false=掲載 | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It honestly discloses that toggling requires an edit_token, and that private=true only hides from listing while preserving direct link. This covers key behavioral traits. Could mention if any other side effects (e.g., search indexing) exist, but it's sufficient.
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 very concise, with a bilingual format that front-loads the English summary. Every sentence adds necessary information: purpose, required token, effect, and example use case. No wasted words.
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 has only 3 simple parameters, no output schema, and relatively simple behavior, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, under what conditions (needs edit_token), the effect, and a typical use case. An agent can correctly invoke this tool.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds value by specifying that edit_token comes from create_house and explaining the effect of private (true=unlisted). This goes 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?
Description clearly states the tool toggles a house's public listing on/off, specifying that private=true hides it from listing but direct link remains. It also gives a use case (culling low-score houses in evolution loops), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_house or list_houses.
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?
Description mentions the mandatory edit_token (from create_house) and explains the effect of private=true. It implies usage context (needs token, used for culling), but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, which would be helpful.
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.