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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true already declared, the description usefully adds partial-update semantics ('Only supplied fields change') and clarifies that nothing downstream is generated. However, it never states reversibility or whether an update triggers rules, and the trailing sentence about archiving/declining/restoring not running rules creates ambiguity about the update path itself.

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?

Front-loads the scope and mutation semantics in short, terse sentences with no filler. The final sentence about archiving/declining/restoring not running rules is tangential to this tool's purpose and slightly muddies an otherwise tight block.

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 partial-update mutation tool with no output schema and full schema documentation, the description covers the essentials: which fields change, that unspecified fields are untouched, and where ordering belongs. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 id, title (<=20 chars), impact enum, content, and summary. The description repeats the 20-character title constraint but omits the 'summary' parameter entirely, adding little beyond the structured fields. 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?

States a concrete verb+resource (update an idea) and enumerates the mutable fields (short name <=20 chars, detail, impact). It also actively distinguishes itself from the sibling 'reorder' for ordering and from the archive/decline/restore family, so an agent can route without opening other schemas.

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?

Gives explicit routing for one alternative: 'Order is separate: move an idea with reorder,' which is exactly the kind of disambiguation an agent needs. It does not cover other nearby choices (delete_idea, archive_idea, restore_idea as the actual update targets), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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