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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it says only the status changes ('nothing else about the idea changes') and that the returned idea includes the produced article when applicable. It does not contradict the destructive hint, though it could more explicitly note that dismissal is a state change requiring the idea to exist.

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, zero filler, with the primary use case front-loaded before the return behavior and the exclusion. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them usefully. Combined with the annotations covering safety/idempotency, an agent has everything needed to invoke this three-parameter mutation correctly.

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%, with the status enum and the 'only with status used' constraint on usedForArticleId already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the conditional article parameter ('when given, the article it produced') without adding format or id-validation detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource (mark a topic idea used/dismissed/reverted to new) and names the object in the same breath. It also delineates scope against the nearest alternative behavior ('Not for editing an idea's title or angle'), so an agent can distinguish it from update-style siblings without opening the 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 explicit triggering conditions ('when someone asks to mark ... used, dismiss it, or bring it back as new') and an explicit exclusion ('Not for editing an idea's title or angle'). It stops short of naming a sibling tool to route editing requests to, so it is clear but not fully routing-complete.

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