Empty room

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main effect (removes objects) and return value, but does not mention any side effects, limitations, processing time, or whether it is safe/reversible. This is minimal disclosure for a transformation 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 very concise: a single sentence plus a result statement, with no redundant or extraneous information. Every word is necessary.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and output. However, it lacks additional context about behavioral traits (e.g., no mention of AI processing, constraints, or error conditions). It is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 only parameter imageUrl is already well-described in the input schema with a clear explanation. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Given 100% schema coverage, a 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 ('Remove all furniture and objects') and the resource ('a room'), with a specific output ('emptied image URL'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pedra_remove_object (removes a single object) and pedra_furnish (adds furniture).

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 context is clear: use this tool to empty a room. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The description implies the use case, but lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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