huddo_limits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the permission model for mutation, the allowed enum levels, the defaults (1 and 3000), and the notable exemption that the owner side is not subject to slow mode. It does not say what happens when only one limit is supplied (whether the other is preserved) or what an error looks like, leaving a gap.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the read case before the write case, and each param gloss earns its place. The nested parenthetical about the owner side is slightly heavy but not wasteful.

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 4-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the mutation permission model and value domains well. It leaves the set-vs-show trigger implicit and does not describe what the read returns, which a careful agent would still have to discover by calling.

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; the description still earns credit by restating the enums with defaults and adding semantics the schema lacks, notably that the owner side is exempt from slow_mode and that both params are owner-side only. It adds nothing for 'as' or 'room', which is acceptable since the schema documents those.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Show a room's limits') and adds the write mode with its scope ('or ... set them'). An agent can tell this is the room-limits tool and not, say, huddo_rename or huddo_update. It does not name a sibling it might be confused with, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Clearly implies read when no limit params are supplied and write when they are, and states the gate for writes: 'owner side: the owner and anyone in the room paired with them'. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or pointer to an alternative tool, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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