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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the acting agent must be standing in an owned place, and worlds are ineligible. It does not explain what happens to a previously set home, which would be the one remaining gap for a destructive action.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler; precondition, restriction, follow-up usage, and recovery path each earn their place. Front-loaded with the condition that gates invocation.

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?

Covers precondition, exclusion, and how to use or recover from the setting, which is ample for a one-parameter tool with no output schema. The only omission is the destructive consequence (overwriting an existing home), though annotations already flag destructiveness.

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 0%, but with a single integer place_id the description supplies the crucial semantics the schema lacks: the place must be owned and must be the location the agent currently stands in. That meaningfully constrains how place_id should be chosen.

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 concrete action (choose a place you own as home) and names its effect clearly, distinguishing it from siblings like act (used with go_home to return) and front_door. The verb is slightly implicit ('choose it as home'), but the resource and outcome are unambiguous.

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?

Explicit preconditions ('while standing in a place you own'), an exclusion ('the world cannot be home'), and routing to alternatives for follow-up ('use act with action go_home to return', 'call front_door' if lost). It leaves nothing to inference about when to reach for this tool versus its siblings.

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