Name a room

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and 'Create or replace' is consistent with that. The description adds real value beyond the annotations by disclosing the validation rule that aliases can't collide with existing room/group names or 'all', and by naming the return payload since no output schema exists.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then constraints, then return shape. Every sentence carries information; only the trailing return-value sentence is arguably the least essential.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description fills the remaining gaps well: it states what is created/replaced, the collision constraint, that one alias may cover multiple rooms, and what is returned. Only explicit guidance on when this tool is preferred over other naming or configuration approaches is missing.

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 meaning the schema doesn't: it clarifies that a single alias can point at several rooms ('downstairs'), and that alias strings must not collide with room names, group names, or 'all' — a constraint absent from 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create or replace a room alias') and immediately grounds it with concrete examples ('office' for 'Room 3', 'downstairs' for several rooms). No sibling tool in the list creates aliases, so the agent can route here unambiguously.

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?

Usage is implied by the examples rather than stated: an agent infers this is the tool for assigning human-friendly names to rooms or room groups. There is no explicit when-to-use framing or comparison against alternatives, though the naming-collision constraint ('can't reuse a room name, a group name or all') is a useful boundary.

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