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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true already declared, the description adds genuine behavioral context: 'Only supplied fields change' discloses partial-update/PATCH semantics, and 'Nothing is generated' tells the agent no rules or derived output are triggered. It stops short of explaining the destructive implication flagged by the annotation or what the call returns, but it meaningfully enriches the safety profile.

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-loaded with the primary action and kept to a handful of short sentences with no filler. The phrasing is slightly clipped and telegraphic ('short name of at most 20 characters, optional detail, or impact'), but every sentence carries information.

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 five-parameter update tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing pieces: partial-update semantics, no side-effect generation, and routing to reorder for ordering. It leaves the destructive hint unexplained, but otherwise covers what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 all five parameters are already documented, including the 20-character limit on title and the minor/major enum for impact. The description restates those fields but adds no format, constraint, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 specific verb (Update) and resource (idea), and enumerates the exact mutable fields (short name, detail, impact). It actively differentiates from siblings by routing order changes to reorder and noting archive/decline/restore as separate operations, so an agent can distinguish it from the surrounding update_* and idea tools.

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?

The description names an explicit alternative for a closely related operation ('Order is separate: move an idea with reorder'), giving clear routing guidance. It does not, however, state when to prefer update_idea over get_idea or how it relates to the other update_* tools, so the guidance is real but partial.

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