Create a room

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), so the description carries the rest and does so well: it names the failure mode (room_limit_reached), the required scope (rooms:write), the plan/branding dependency, and the retry semantics via request_id. It also describes the returned payload (code, join_url, projector_url, host_url), which no structured field supplies.

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?

Front-loaded with the create action and its lifecycle constraint, and every sentence carries information (returns, limits, auth, idempotency). It is a dense single paragraph, though — splitting the eligibility/limits and retry guidance would improve scannability.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: side effects, return artifacts, auth scope, quota failure and its remedy, and safe-retry behavior. Nothing material 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 workflow meaning: open=false produces a room that admits nobody until open_room, and request_id is tied to safe retry after a lost reply. moderation and description are left entirely to the schema, but the two behaviorally significant params are grounded.

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+resource (create a Q&A room) and explicitly frames it against siblings: open=false defers admission until open_room, and polls are added via create_survey later. An agent can distinguish this from open_room, close_room, and create_survey without reading any schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use context ("Use it before a session") and explicit routing rules: use open_room to admit people to a prepared room, and close_room first when room_limit_reached fires. Alternatives and the condition selecting them are spelled out.

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