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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explicitly states that only the provided fields change (partial update semantics), which is valuable beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations. It could have added more about error cases or permissions, but the partial-update disclosure is a solid addition.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then adds the key partial-update behavior. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 partial-update tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics well: what can be updated and that only provided fields change. It does not explain the mediaAssetIds parameter or idempotencyKey usage, but the schema partially covers those and the annotations carry the idempotency hint. The description is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly for common cases.

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 57%, so the schema documents some parameters (title, content, folderId, isPinned) but leaves id, mediaAssetIds, and idempotencyKey without descriptions. The description adds high-level meaning by naming the updatable fields, but it does not explain mediaAssetIds or idempotencyKey semantics. The schema's per-parameter descriptions are already strong for the covered fields, so the description's marginal addition is modest but useful.

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 verb ('günceller' = updates) and resource ('mevcut bir fikir' = an existing idea), and lists the exact fields that can be changed: title, content, folder, and pinned status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like xplanner_create_idea or xplanner_delete_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 implies usage for updating an existing idea and notes that only provided fields change, which is useful partial-update guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like the idea needing to exist or the need for an idempotency key for retries.

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