design_a_room

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the room and style are validated against Roomvana's live catalog (implying invalid ids fail) and that the tool only produces a link rather than performing the redesign. It does not cover permissions, error behavior, link persistence, or rate limits.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core outcome (studio link with options pre-selected) followed by what the user does with it. No filler, though the 30-second detail is marginally decorative.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining what the caller receives (a studio link with options pre-selected). The end-to-end user flow is covered; only failure/validation-error behavior is left unspecified.

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%, so the schema already documents room, style, and the notes field (including that notes are echoed but not encoded in the link). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 artifact: it turns a room + style into a pre-configured Roomvana studio link. It also clarifies what the tool does not do (the redesign happens after the user opens the link), so an agent can tell it apart from the sibling list_room_types and list_design_styles tools.

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?

The description implies the usage context by describing the downstream user flow (open link, upload photo, get redesign), but it never states when to call this vs. alternatives or any prerequisites. The only routing hint ('See list_room_types' / 'See list_design_styles') lives in the schema, not the description, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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