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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations lack: the ownership requirement, the standing-location requirement, and the error condition that the world cannot be set as home.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: condition, constraint, follow-up route, and recovery route. Well front-loaded and entirely free of 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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical preconditions, the failure case, and how the state is consumed later via go_home. Only the identity of place_id remains underspecified.

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?

Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema gives no semantics for place_id. The description implies it is the place you currently occupy and own, adding meaning, but never states that place_id is the location's identifier nor what values are valid.

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 and resource ('choose it as home') plus the precondition ('while standing in a place you own'), so the effect is unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the related sibling act via the go_home action, though it does not contrast against other place-related tools like place_edit.

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 when-to-use ('standing in a place you own'), an explicit exclusion ('the world cannot be home'), and named alternatives for both follow-up ('use act with action go_home') and recovery ('Lost? Call front_door'). An agent has no routing ambiguity left.

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