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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's extra facts are genuinely additive: summary/content are never auto-generated, a new idea is appended at the back of the order, and a name colliding with a declined idea is refused. That last point is a real precondition an agent would otherwise discover only by failure.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the creation action and its hard constraint, then constraints and the ordering rule. No filler and every sentence carries a distinct fact.

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?

For a six-parameter write tool with no output schema, it covers the creation constraints, ordering behavior, and the declined-name refusal well. The one remaining gap is that nothing states what a successful call returns (the created idea object), which matters since no output schema exists to fall back on.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that 'impact' is semantic product scope and explicitly not priority, and by restating that summary/content are optional and never generated. That disambiguation is not present in the field descriptions.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Create a project idea') and immediately bounds it with the required short-name constraint, so an agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from sibling creation or lifecycle tools such as update_idea, decline_idea, or restore_idea.

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 one concrete routing hint – new ideas land at the back of the order and 'move it forward with reorder' – which points at the follow-up tool. There is no guidance on when to create an idea versus updating or restoring one, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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