Evacuate room

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the operation parts all local users, which is a destructive action, and clarifies that only local members are affected. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but the core behavior is transparent enough for this simple tool.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a practical use case. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, scope, and a motivating scenario. It does not explain return values or prerequisites, but these are not critical for such a straightforward operation, making it adequately complete.

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?

The input schema fully covers the single parameter `roomId` with a description and format example, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action with a specific verb ('Part') and resource ('all local users from a room'), which is distinct from sibling tools like evacuate_user (likely targeting a single user) and purge_room (likely removing the room entirely). The scope is unambiguous.

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 provides a clear usage context ('when a room is stuck and needs every local member removed at once'), giving the agent situational guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools such as evacuate_user or purge_room, 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.