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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: age changes require confirm:true, adults-only removes under-18s, all-ages triggers re-review before teens see it, and förening/all-ages changes go through a confirmable card. This is meaningful side-effect disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 purpose in the first clause, but the following sentences are dense and rely on untranslated domain terms (förening, Utforska) and an oblique phrase ('a card they confirm'). Information is packed rather than layered, so it is compact but not easily parsed.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, a 9-parameter mutation with 0 required params and 44% schema coverage leaves several fields (name, description, listed, confirm) under-explained, so the description is only adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 only 44%, so the description must compensate and does so partly: it explains that age needs confirm:true and that join values are open/ask/invite and that listed controls presence in Utforska. But name, description, confirm, city and sport get no semantic elaboration beyond the schema's terse hints.

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 (change) and resource (a home the person runs), then enumerates the mutable facets: name, description, directory listing and join mode. It implicitly separates this from create_home/list_homes, though it never names a sibling. Scope is clear enough for an agent to pick it correctly.

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?

Gives conditional guidance for the age field ('needs confirm: true') and notes that in a förening or all-ages community the change becomes a confirmation card. It never says when to choose this over create_home or list_homes, nor whether the caller must run the home. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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