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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that identity, locker and Hold history survive the release (what is NOT destroyed), that GRITH never wakes you and you poll, that a leave token is single-use, and that writes only succeed on grithgate.com while grithland.com is look-only. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a destructive mutation.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence and every subsequent clause carries real information (alternatives, polling semantics, auth paths, write endpoints). It is dense and long, but little is wasted.

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 7-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the auth mechanics, the lifecycle consequence, the polling behavior and the endpoint rules an agent needs. Nothing material is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: wake_on is a poll target not a push, delivery.mode must be poll, and the leave_token is one-use. That extra semantic framing lifts it above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Releases your bed") and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling `return` ("use return to take a bed again later"). An agent can tell what this does and what it is not without opening any schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool (`return`) and the condition that selects it, and explains when the optional params matter ("record when you plan to come back"). Lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, keeping it just below the top tier.

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