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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and provides almost nothing. The dry-run default is only discoverable through the schema's 'execute' description, not the tool description; auth needs, side effects, and output are undisclosed.

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?

It is brief, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. The single sentence carries only the name and a 'command' label, adding no front-loaded actionable 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 mutation-style bootstrap command with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It gives no indication of what the bootstrap does to the project, what it generates, or how it differs from the many sibling setup tools.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 restates the tool name and title ('room.bootstrap (command)') without explaining what bootstrapping a room actually does or returns. It does not distinguish it from siblings like room.flow.explain, room.lifecycle.plan, or integration.plan.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent cannot infer when to pick room.bootstrap over room.lifecycle.plan or shared::room.bootstrap.

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