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

Annotations declare a non-destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent write; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the idea is private to the capturing user until shared, never appears in anyone's task list, and visibility is changed in the web app. It also describes the return payload. It does not address duplicate/retry behavior implied by idempotentHint=false, a minor gap.

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?

Front-loads the core definition, then escalates to contrast with create_task, privacy, projectId guidance, and return shape. Every sentence carries information, though the paragraph is on the long side for a single create call.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return fields (id, idea with id/title/status, url), covers the privacy model, the optional-vs-required parameter split, and the promotion path. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all five parameters including the 'omit for a General (unfiled) idea' wording. The description reinforces the projectId case and adds the reasoning behind it, but contributes little textual meaning beyond the structured fields; 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+resource ('Capture an IDEA') and immediately defines the resource's distinguishing nature: uncommitted, possibly half-formed, no assignee, no due date. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_task, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('use this instead of create_task when the thing is not agreed work yet'), names the alternative tool, and adds the follow-up path ('Promote it later with promote_idea'). projectId omission guidance ('normal case when someone is just thinking out loud') further disambiguates usage.

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