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

Annotations already establish write, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds that title derivation happens server-side and that the target is the signed-in user's scope, but it never warns that repeated calls will create duplicates (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or what permissions project attachment requires.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the required input, then the optional ones. No filler and no restatement of name or title.

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 no output schema, the description should say what comes back — it hints that the reply names the default project but not that the created idea (and its id) is returned, which an agent needs for follow-up calls. Otherwise it is complete for a single-required-param create 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the Markdown rules and project defaulting. The description only restates the statuses and the optional project in prose, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: "Capture a new content idea for the signed-in user." That clearly separates it from get-idea and update-idea by name alone, though it never explicitly names those siblings or states what it is not for.

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 tells the agent the body is required, the title is optional and auto-derived, and project attachment/status are optional extras — enough context to call it correctly. It does not state when to prefer update-idea (for an existing idea) or any exclusions, so no full 5.

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