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

Annotations only include destructiveHint:false, so the description carries the burden. It discloses upsert behavior (title-match to update), the requirement for complete text, and the consequence of resync:true—re-stamping staleness signals to prevent immediate regeneration nagging. This goes well beyond the minimal annotation.

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 sentences, each dense with useful information. There is no filler, but the third sentence on resync is long with nested clauses. Given the complexity of the parameter, this is acceptable and stays concise enough.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description covers core usage: create/update behavior, complete text requirement, and resync semantics while referencing get_stale. It omits some parameter details (batch, project_id) but those are in the schema. Overall, it is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 83%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the resync parameter in detail (when to set true and why), and clarifies that content must be complete. It does not describe batch or project_id, but the schema already covers those, so the description complements rather than repeats.

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 tool proposes a new/updated Idea note to the Inbox, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling propose_* tools (e.g., propose_screen, propose_system) by focusing specifically on Idea notes and mentions title-match update behavior.

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 provides clear context: title-match determines update vs. new, and content must be the complete revised text. It also gives an explicit condition for setting resync:true, referencing get_stale to identify stale notes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the resource type and update semantics make usage clear.

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