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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that the names affect search results and diary cooked_by labels, which is a downstream consequence not captured by 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?

The definition is a single, compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and examples embedded efficiently. The final clause about search and cooked_by is slightly awkwardly worded but still earns its place by explaining downstream impact.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety and idempotency, so the description need not explain return values. It supplies purpose, examples, and downstream naming effects; only minor details such as permission requirements or whether both names can be updated together are absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters already document that empty values keep the existing name. The description adds meaning about the effect of names but does not provide additional per-parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and two resources: renaming the household and changing the household-specific name for the user. The example utterances make the purpose concrete, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling update_profile tool.

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?

Concrete example phrases such as "call our household Casa Silva" and "in the household I'm Mum, not Ana" map directly to the two parameters and clearly indicate when to use the tool. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to alternatives like update_profile, but the context is clear.

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