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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real state-transition detail beyond the annotations: the idea leaves the planning order, is listed among declined ideas, and a repeat decline overwrites the reason rather than failing. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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 and then the consequences. Each sentence contributes something (action, post-state, repeat behavior) with no filler.

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 and only two well-documented parameters, the description covers what an agent needs: what the call does, what happens to the idea, and how repeats behave. It does not mention any return value or error condition, but nothing critical is missing for a small mutation 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% (both id and reason are documented, including the max length and 'in their own words' phrasing), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description's mention of the reason adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 (decline) and resource (idea), and goes beyond the name by describing the resulting state: the idea leaves the planning order and appears with declined ideas. It does not explicitly contrast with delete_idea, archive_idea, or restore_idea, so the sibling boundary is only implied by the state-change description.

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 context for the action ('the vibe coder decided against') and notes that re-declining replaces the previous reason, which is useful behavioral guidance. However it never says when to prefer decline over delete_idea or archive_idea, leaving the agent to infer the choice from sibling names.

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