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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the word '(command)'. It does not mention that it mutates a project, that execute:false is a dry-run by default, or any permission/side-effect context.

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 single short sentence contains no waste but is also entirely non-informative; this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing substantive is said.

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 bootstrap/mutation command with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent needs: what it sets up, required state, and side effects. It is completely inadequate even though the parameter schema is well documented.

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 the dry-run/execute and projectRoot semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 only restates the tool name and title verbatim ('room.bootstrap (command)') plus the product name. It never states what bootstrapping a room actually does or what it creates. It is a tautology rather than a description of purpose.

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 differentiation from siblings such as room.lifecycle.plan, room.flow.explain, or app.scaffold. The agent is given nothing to select this tool over alternatives.

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