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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates that submission is not immediately approved, that the owner reviews it asynchronously, and that authorship credit may be granted publicly. It does not mention reversibility or visibility of the board, but the main side effects are transparent.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds useful workflow and outcome context that is worth including.

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?

The schema fully covers input parameters, and the description covers the proposal lifecycle and credit consequences. The only notable gap is that no output schema is present and the description does not mention what the call returns, leaving the agent to infer the response, but this is a minor gap for a submit-style tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only minimal context around author credit and does not provide new parameter-level details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 description states a specific action and object: 'Propose an idea.' The added context about accepted ideas being built and authors credited makes it distinct from sibling tools like comment_idea or vote_idea, which are for interacting with existing ideas rather than submitting new ones.

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 gives useful process context, such as the owner reviewing the board every evening and the acceptance outcome, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus comment_idea, vote_idea, or get_idea. The usage is implied rather than directly stated with exclusions or alternatives.

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