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

Annotations already declare the write-ish but non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the alias redirects, can later be repointed, and the returned token cannot be recovered — a meaningful irreversibility warning that the annotations do not convey.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and packs the definition, the repointing path, and the return/token caveat with no 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return contract (alias URL plus its own token, irrecoverable), which is exactly what an agent needs. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% schema coverage, and the schema already explains that room_url accepts a room URL or an existing alias URL. The description adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (makes an alias of a room) and immediately explains what an alias is: a stable URL that redirects to the room. It distinguishes itself from the sibling parlor_alias_move by naming that tool as the later repointing mechanism.

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 a clear use context ('for a README or a profile') and explicitly routes the repointing case to parlor_alias_move. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. vs. sharing the raw room URL), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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