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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful non-destructive context by clarifying that sharing is not revoked, and it hints at the expected_version/confirmation_token workflow. It does not fully explain overwrite consequences, but the combination of annotations and description gives adequate behavioral transparency.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the core purpose, then add the prerequisite and a disambiguating caveat. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name, making this appropriately concise and well structured.

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 6-parameter update tool with expected_version, idempotency_key, and confirmation_token, the description gives only a light hint that current-state confirmation is needed. It does not fully explain how to obtain or supply that confirmation or why idempotency matters. The output schema and annotations reduce some of the burden, so this is adequate but not 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It connects 'changes' to description or name and gestures at current-state confirmation, but it leaves project_id, room_id, idempotency_key, and confirmation_token essentially unexplained. The schema provides only field titles, so an agent still has to infer critical semantics around idempotency and versioning.

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 identifies a specific mutation: changing the room's name or description. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sparkroom.revoke_share_link by explicitly stating 'This does not revoke sharing,' and from sparkroom.update_item by targeting the room itself.

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 phrase 'after reviewing current-state confirmation' gives a clear prerequisite: the agent should first inspect the current room state before updating, which maps to expected_version and confirmation_token. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but it provides enough contextual guidance and a useful exclusion in 'does not revoke sharing.'

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