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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those flags: existing room links reflect the new presentation 'immediately,' and revision/live-source modes remain unchanged. This helps an agent anticipate side effects without contradicting the annotations.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary intent is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds behaviorally important propagation detail without becoming verbose.

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 mutating tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is decent but leaves key workflow gaps. It mentions 'current-state confirmation' but does not explain how confirmation is represented or obtained, nor does it clarify the roles of expected_version and idempotency_key. An agent would likely need to inspect sibling tools or experiment to use this correctly.

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 maps only three of the seven parameters ('title, section or order' to display_title, section, and order_index). It does not explain the critical semantics of expected_version, confirmation_token, or idempotency_key, which are central to the 'current-state confirmation' workflow and safe mutation.

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 names a specific operation ('Change'), a specific resource ('room item'), and the exact fields affected ('title, section or order'). It also scopes the behavior by stating that only presentation is updated and that revision/live-source modes remain unchanged, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like sparkroom.update and sparkroom.remove_item.

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 establishes clear usage context: this is for changing presentation attributes of an existing room item, and it should happen 'after current-state confirmation.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the 'room item presentation' focus plus sibling names makes the intended use reasonably discoverable.

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