Add rooms to virtual tour

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: credit cost formula for sequential linking, free option for linking none, async behavior, and the need to poll until status ready. This is exactly the kind of operational context an agent needs for a mutating, credit-consuming, asynchronous 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 front-loaded with the core action, then efficiently packs linking behavior, cost implications, and required polling into three sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant restatement of the schema or annotations.

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 mutating tool with annotations covering safety hints, no output schema, and full parameter schema coverage, the description supplies the critical missing operational context: async execution, cost model, and polling instructions. An agent has enough information to call this correctly without opening other tools.

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 would be 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the effect of the linking parameter, including the difference between sequential and none and the resulting credit cost. It also clarifies that new rooms are appended and linked in walking order, which reinforces the scenes parameter semantics.

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: add rooms to the end of an existing virtual tour. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pedra_create_virtual_tour and pedra_update_virtual_tour, which create or modify tour metadata rather than append scenes.

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 first sentence establishes clear context for when this tool applies: extending an existing tour. It also instructs the agent to poll pedra_get_virtual_tour until status is ready after invocation. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or contrast with alternative sibling tools beyond the polling helper.

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