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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the bar is lower, but the description adds real behavioral facts: archiving never mutates the idea's posts, and a pillarId contradicting the angle is refused. What is still missing is idempotency/retry behavior and what happens on a conflicting concurrent edit.

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?

It is dense and front-loaded with the mode summary, then breaks out each mode in one sentence. Every sentence carries operational information, though the related-tools line is slightly tacked on and the block is on the long side for a single tool.

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 seven-parameter multi-mode mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers create/edit/archive paths, cross-field constraints, and downstream routing. Return values need not be explained given the output schema; only error/refusal handling details are left thin.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter rules the schema does not express: which fields are required per mode, that an angle sets the pillar and persona, that a standalone pillar requires angleId null, and that only changed fields should be sent on edit.

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?

The first sentence states a precise set of verbs and the resource: 'Creates, edits, archives or unarchives a content idea.' It clearly separates this tool from siblings like save_post (drafting) and list_ideas (reading), and the multi-mode nature is spelled out rather than implied.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance per mode ('To create: pass title', 'To edit: pass id and only the fields that change', 'To archive or unarchive: pass id and archived'), plus an explicit hand-off rule: 'To draft a post from an idea, call save_post with channel and ideaId.' Related tools are named, so routing is unambiguous.

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