Use Interaction

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by stating that only virtual room state changes and that the action is protected by actionId and stateVersion. This gives agents a clearer model of side effects and concurrency expectations.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the primary operation, then adds the optional parameter and the key behavioral constraints. Every clause contributes necessary information.

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?

Given the output schema, the parameters are fully documented and the description explains behavior, scope, and protection. It is complete enough to invoke correctly. A small gap is that it gives no explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but this is not necessary given the clear interactionId-from-inspect trigger.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters in detail. The description repeats interactionId's origin and itemId's optionality but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema. This is the baseline 3: the schema carries the burden, and the description does not materially supplement it.

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 operation: perform an interactionId returned by inspect, optionally with an inventory itemId. It identifies the resource and distinguishes this tool from ancestors like inspect and look. The phrase 'changes only virtual room state' further clarifies the tool's specific effect.

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 the correct context: use this tool after inspect has returned an interactionId, and optionally provide an inventory itemId. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the 'returned by inspect' phrasing gives clear contextual guidance. Sibling tools like move and inspect are implicitly distinguished by this source requirement.

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