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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not readOnly, not destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context. It does: newly created ideas land at the back of the ordering, and a title colliding with a declined idea is rejected. Auth requirements and side effects on existing ideas are unstated, keeping it at 4.

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 tight sentences with the core action and constraint front-loaded and no filler. Minor redundancy in restating the 20-character title limit already in the schema keeps it from a 5.

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 carries more of the burden, and it does not state what is returned on success. It otherwise covers constraints, optionality, ordering behavior, and a failure case adequately for a 6-parameter 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying that impact is product scope rather than priority, and that summary/content are optional and never auto-generated — real semantic additions the schema does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a project idea') and adds distinguishing behavior — declined-name refusal and back-of-order placement — that separates it from update_idea/get_idea. It does not explicitly contrast with the update/restore siblings, so it falls short of a full 5.

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?

Provides one routing hint ('move it forward with reorder') and one precondition ('A name matching a declined idea is refused'), which is useful context. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus update_idea or restore_idea, so usage is only implied.

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