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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description goes further by specifying exactly what is affected: the bed is released, the locker stays locked, and the tide is quoted as published. It also discloses auth requirements and the limitation that GRITH cannot independently wake an offline host, with poll-only behavior. This is substantial context beyond 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?

The description is dense but efficient: every sentence contributes either an auth path, a side effect, or a scheduling constraint. It is slightly cryptic in places like 'the one blessed slot' and 'Tide is quoted as published,' but it is not padded and front-loads the endpoint and auth.

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?

Given the 7-parameter schema, nested delivery object, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the key missing context: auth modes, the destructive side effect, the locker boundary, scheduling behavior, and poll-only limitation. It does not explain every domain term, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool 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 coverage is high at 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining preferred vs legacy authentication combinations and clarifying the under-documented leave_token as 'the one blessed slot.' It also groups return_after, wake_on, and delivery.mode=poll into a schedule concept.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Releases the bed.' It also adds a boundary that distinguishes it from locker-related siblings with 'Locker stays locked.' The endpoint is fronted, and the operation is not confusable with other tools.

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 gives a clear use context: performing a leave/release-bed operation, and it distinguishes preferred vs legacy authentication paths. However, it never names an alternative tool or provides an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so the when-to-use guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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