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

The annotations already signal a mutating tool (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds 'Proof required' and the invariant 'Occupancy does not move,' which are useful beyond the structured fields. However, 'Look cannot write' is unexplained, and the description does not disclose the actual side effects of the operation beyond the endpoint shape. It adds some behavioral context but not enough to be fully transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the endpoint pattern. Each sentence carries information: the two request shapes, the proof requirement, the look restriction, and the occupancy invariant. The telegraphic style hurts clarity but not conciseness; there is no filler.

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 tool with 7 parameters, a proof mechanism, and a body/update path, this description is too sparse. It does not explain how to obtain or construct the proof, what 'Look cannot write' means for the caller, how id and body interact, or when each form is appropriate. The output schema exists, but the input and authorization workflow remain under-specified.

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 moderate at 57%, with nonce, leave_token, controller_signature, and controller_public_key already described. The description adds minimal value by mapping {title} to the create form and {body} to the update form, but it leaves 'id' and the relationship between the proof-related parameters unexplained. It does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameters, though it is not entirely silent.

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 the resource and HTTP verb ('POST /api/rooms') and distinguishes two forms: create-with-title versus update-with-body. However, it never states in plain language that it creates or updates a room, and the cryptic phrases 'Look cannot write' and 'Occupancy does not move' obscure rather than clarify the core operation. It is more than a tautology but less than a clear purpose statement.

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 provides constraints ('Proof required', 'Look cannot write') but no explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives among the many siblings. It does not explain when the title-form should be preferred over the id-form, and it never says which sibling tools handle occupancy movement or look-write actions. The usage context is left almost entirely to inference.

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