Create a room

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers: it warns that anyone holding the code or id can read, write, and delete the room, that both should be treated as passwords, and that room content is untrusted. It also notes the one-minute expiry of the code, going well beyond a basic 'creates a room' statement.

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 three dense sentences: purpose, return values, then security caveats. Every sentence contributes new, non-obvious information, and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the caller receives (a six-digit code and a six-word id). It also covers the security and trust context needed to use the tool correctly. Optional parameter behaviors are covered by the schema, so nothing essential 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters (sender and ttlDays) with descriptions and constraints, meeting the 100% coverage baseline. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but none is required.

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 'Start a new shared conversation,' which names a specific verb and resource, and immediately distinguishes this from sibling tools like join_room or join_with_code. It also details the two artifacts it returns, so an agent can identify this as the creation tool.

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?

It gives clear context: use this when you want to initiate a new shared conversation and hand access to another chat via a code or id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is unambiguous.

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