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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so those facts are partly restated. The genuinely additive content is the write-scope requirement and the clarification that the record is *marked* dropped rather than hard-deleted, which an agent cannot derive from the annotations.

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 with zero filler, and the core effect (leaves the Parking lot) is front-loaded before the side effect and the constraints. 'Not idempotent' mildly duplicates the annotation but costs almost nothing.

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 two-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers effect, side effect, auth scope and retry behavior adequately. It stops short of saying whether the drop is reversible or what happens to an idea after it is dropped.

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%: idea_id already documents its provenance from list_parking and idempotency_key has a thorough retry-semantics description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so 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 specific verb (drop) and resource (a parked idea) plus the observable outcome: it leaves the Parking lot. The vocabulary of 'parked idea'/'Parking lot' implicitly ties it to park_idea, list_parking and promote_idea, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary with promote_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?

'Needs write scope' signals the prerequisite, and 'leaves the Parking lot' implies the discard scenario. However, it never states when to choose this over promote_idea (advance the idea) versus dropping it, and gives no when-not-to-use guidance.

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