Renovate space

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns a URL, which is consistent. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., cost, side effects) are disclosed, but there is no contradiction.

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 a single sentence that concisely states the action, scope, optionality, and return value. No unnecessary words.

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?

With 5 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the core purpose but lacks details on style options or behavior. Given the well-described schema, it is adequate but could be more helpful.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'optionally furnished' which relates to the furnish parameter, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for other parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Renovate') and specifies the resource ('a space') with details on what is renovated ('walls, floors, finishes'). It also mentions optional furnishing and the return value. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pedra_furnish or pedra_empty_room.

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 implies use when you want to renovate a space, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pedra_furnish or pedra_edit_via_prompt. While the purpose is clear, no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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