Room Optimization Guidance

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the sequential, one-recommendation-at-a-time interaction pattern and the +-3dB success target, which are real behavioral traits, but it does not state whether the tool mutates any state, how sessions are created or persist, or what the responses contain.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the action breakdown, with no filler. The first sentence and the action list overlap slightly in naming the same three capabilities twice, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

This is a 10-parameter tool with a nested room_dimensions object, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should do more. It never explains the session_id lifecycle or how the several measurement_id parameters divide across actions, which is the main thing an agent could get wrong.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no mapping of which parameters apply to which action (e.g. that validate_adjustment expects pre_measurement_id plus target_frequency_hz, or that check_progress keys off session_id), leaving that inference entirely to the agent.

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 names three specific verbs (get placement recommendations, validate adjustments, track progress) and enumerates the exact action values, so an agent knows precisely what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like rew_analyze_room or rew_compare_measurements, which overlap in domain, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Each action value is annotated with its role in the workflow ('next issue to fix', 'check if change helped', 'overall status toward +-3dB target'), and 'One recommendation at a time for scientific approach' constrains the interaction pattern. There are no explicit exclusions naming when to prefer rew_analyze_room or rew_compare_measurements instead.

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