Embed an appliance or sink

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this with real substance: the host gets cut (including the wooden top of the cabinet beneath a sink), the item becomes part of the host and moves with it, and errors are actionable. It stops short of noting reversibility or permission requirements.

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 purpose is front-loaded and each clause is informative, but the middle sentence is a dense run-on of parentheticals and the error example ('use w = 61 no armário') is cryptic. It is not padded, yet it is harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 destructive, host-modifying operation the description covers the important effects (cutout/niche, cut_below, item joining the host) and even summarizes the reply shape despite an output schema existing. Nothing critical is missing, though auth/permission context is 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics the schema does not: the mutual-exclusivity/alternative between item (existing id) and cat (+w/d/h) for a new one, and how z positions the item. Only the at/dry nuances are left to the schema.

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 a precise verb+resource (embed an item into joinery with an exact fit) and enumerates the concrete cases: sink bowl/cooktop into a countertop, oven/microwave into a cabinet niche, TV onto a slatted panel. This is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like place, move, or create.

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?

It spells out the scenarios in which embedding applies and how the item is supplied (existing id vs. new cat with w/d/h), which is strong contextual guidance. It does not, however, explicitly name alternatives (e.g. place/move) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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