Add what a room scan found

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the scan is then marked done (a state transition), each new item records its room-scan provenance, and only user-chosen items should be passed. It does not say what happens if the scan was already consumed or whether the batch is atomic, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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-loaded with the action, then preconditions, side effects, and return value in a single tight passage with no filler. The em-dash clauses make it slightly dense but nothing is redundant.

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 non-destructive write tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, it covers purpose, precondition, side effects, and the return value ('the items made'). Only error and idempotency behavior on an already-completed scan is left unstated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning: the name field may carry the person's correction rather than the scan's original text, and categoryId may be supplied optionally, both of which clarify how to populate the schema fields in practice.

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 — adds the chosen items from a ready room scan into that scan's room or box — and frames it as the downstream step of the scan workflow, implicitly separating it from scan_room (scanning) and room_scan_results (reviewing). The mention that names can be corrected and a categoryId supplied further pins down what the call does.

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 precondition: 'Only after the person has confirmed the list,' which is exactly the gating condition an agent needs before writing. It does not name an alternative such as create_item for one-off additions, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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