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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description genuinely adds value by naming the side effects ('Atualiza Room.hkStatus e HousekeepingLog') and the required scope. However, it omits two things that matter for a non-idempotent mutation: whether an invalid transition is rejected, and whether each call appends a new HousekeepingLog entry (duplication risk on retry). The trailing 'INDISPONÍVEL nesta autorização' is also ambiguous – it reads as a runtime availability claim rather than a static prerequisite.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and dense, and the metadata line (scope, risk, effects) is a compact structured summary. The final 'INDISPONÍVEL' clause is appended awkwardly and reads as boilerplate rather than part of the operation description, costing a bit of clarity.

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?

With no output schema, 0% schema description coverage and five parameters, an agent still lacks the return shape, the transition-validity rules, and the meaning of 'checklist'. What is present (states, scope, side effects, optionality hints) is useful but not sufficient to call the tool confidently in edge cases.

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 carry parameter meaning. It accounts for the status enum and labels employee_id and notes as optional, but never mentions habitation_id (a required key) and completely omits the 'checklist' array parameter, leaving one of five parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 verb 'Move' plus the resource 'habitação' and the explicit enumeration of the governance states (DIRTY, CLEANING, CLEAN, INSPECTED, OUT_OF_ORDER) makes the operation unmistakable and separates it from the read-only sibling get_housekeeping_status. It stops short of naming that sibling, so an agent must infer the read/write split.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for advancing a unit through the housekeeping flow, and the note about requiring the operations:write scope plus the 'INDISPONÍVEL nesta autorização' warning gives a precondition of sorts. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_housekeeping_status, nor any guidance on invalid or skipped transitions (e.g., CLEAN to DIRTY).

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