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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining that only passed fields change and that sending the same values twice is safe (idempotent). This contextualizes the annotations well, though no additional edge cases or side effects are mentioned.

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?

Two sentences: first states what the tool does, second clarifies behavior. Efficient and to the point, but the second sentence could be more concise ('idempotent' already implies the rest).

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?

Output schema exists, so return value explanation is not needed. The description covers the mutation semantics well, explains idempotency, and lists affected fields. For a straightforward update tool, this is sufficient, though no mention of error cases or authorization needs is provided.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a list of parameter names mapped to human labels (e.g., 'type' listed as 'type') and clarifies that only provided fields are updated. This goes beyond merely repeating schema descriptions.

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 explicitly says 'Update fields on one of your ideas', listing specific updatable fields (title, description, type, target audience, revenue model, visibility). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_idea_status or create_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?

The description states that only passed fields are changed, and it notes the tool is idempotent. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_idea_status, nor does it mention any prerequisites or when not to use it.

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