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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds explicit statement of idempotence and safety ('setting the same status twice is safe'), reinforcing and contextualizing the hint. It does not contradict any annotation.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, the second adds valid statuses and a behavioral trait. Front-loaded and to the point.

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 simple update tool with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, valid inputs, and idempotent behavior. No further information is needed.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds the list of valid statuses (already present in schema enum) and frames them as a journey, but this does not significantly enhance semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states it updates the build status of an idea, with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('idea status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_idea or log_build_progress by focusing exclusively on status transitions along the 'journey from concept to launch'.

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 lists valid statuses, which implies the tool is for transitioning between these statuses. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_idea for other fields, log_build_progress for logging progress), nor does it provide when-not-to-use constraints.

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