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

With annotations already covering readOnly=false and idempotent=false, the description still adds real value: it names the concrete side effect ('writes a parking_item') and the authorization requirement ('needs write scope'). The 'not idempotent' line restates idempotentHint=false but the caveat is worth surfacing given the idempotency_key parameter exists.

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, front-loaded sentences: effect, lifecycle, then side effect/scope/idempotency. Every clause carries information an agent needs and nothing is repeated.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation, its side effect, the auth scope, and the non-idempotent retry risk. Only the return shape (e.g. whether an item id comes back) is unaddressed, which is minor.

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 body, markdown support, the sealed-Space UA1 ciphertext rule, and the idempotency_key retry semantics are all fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-specific 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 and resource (park a one-line idea in this Space) plus its lifecycle terminus (promoted or dropped), which implicitly separates it from promote_idea and drop_idea. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation requires inference.

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 phrase 'until it is promoted to a Campaign or Articles entry, or dropped' implies when the parked item is consumed, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance against siblings like request, add_paper, or create_anchor. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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