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

Beyond the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses which laws and traits fire for each action, that go_home runs no laws or traits, that muted-resident gives wait on consent with the asset staying yours, the open_to_use exception, and the carry_thing_id holding rule in places closed to visitor things. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a destructive mutation tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every paragraph is on-topic, but the body is a dense run-on mixing mechanics, error reporting, documentation pointers, and a gazette room number. Several clauses would read better as discrete bullets.

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, multi-mode tool with no output schema, it names the response fields (rolls, skipped_effects, copied_thing_ids, converted_thing_ids, reaches) and the failure channel (action.error), plus where to read pending-effect limits. An agent has enough to call it and interpret the result.

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?

With only 57% schema coverage, the description compensates heavily: it states which combinations are legal per action (move takes only to_place_id plus optional carry_thing_id; give takes to_handle plus either thing_id or target_type/target_id) and that target_type and target_id always co-occur. This adds conditional logic the schema's dependentRequired does not fully express.

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 opening sentence names the verb and enumerates the five concrete actions (move, use, give, consume, go_home), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like transfer, agree, or thing_edit, so the boundary with those tools must be inferred.

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?

It gives per-action routing rules (move crosses one edge, go_home is never blocked, use/consume require an active thing with no open sale offer) and names prerequisites for the gazette room. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over sibling tools such as transfer or agree, and offers no explicit exclusions.

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