One of the most useful things I’ve read was Ryan Veeder explaining how he works very hard to write descriptions that do not include extraneous items. This is both to keep the player focused, and to avoid having to spend extra time implementing “description clutter” (my term, not his.)
I limit the space available to populate each room because I don’t want them to get too crowded. A room only needs two or four thingies in it! Five, max. And I’m talking about thingies the player needs to keep track of: Stuff that should be on the edges of the player’s awareness, like the floor tile or a window, doesn’t count. Neither do nested or intentionally hidden objects, like a desk containing a drawer containing an envelope containing a lock of hair. You know what I mean.
Limiting the number of details per room makes the world a lot easier for players to hold in their minds, and it makes implementation a lot easier for the author. This approach to design could be termed “efficient” or “lazy” but it has also been called the “school of Ryan Veeder” which is kind of nice.
https://www.rcveeder.net/blog/2016/08/10/the-imitable-process-of-ryan-veeder/
This kind of goes against authors’ normal impulses of writing and painting a descriptive picture, but IF has different objectives. You have to remember - if the author specifically mentions the wallpaper, that calls attention to it and the player will naturally want to know more about it. If you’ve got fifty scenic items in a room with descriptions, it makes the one important thing the player needs to worry about less obvious.
That’s not to say don’t write beautifully descriptive games that are museum pieces about exploring things in detail, but it’s good to keep in mind how you want to focus the player on any potential forward momentum in the story.