Promote Idea to Feature

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

The description claims the tool is idempotent ('Idempotent — an already-promoted idea returns its existing feature'), but the annotation 'idempotentHint' is false, which directly contradicts the description. This is a serious inconsistency that misleads the agent.

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 concise (four sentences) with no redundant information. It front-loads the main purpose and idempotency, then gives usage tips. Every sentence 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?

Given no output schema, the description states it returns the feature id. It explains idempotency, the prerequisite (list_ideas), and a post-step (update_feature). It is complete for a tool of this complexity, though missing details about error 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by providing sources for parameter values ('from list_ideas' for id, 'from whoami' for product_id) and explaining that product_id is optional with a default behavior. This goes 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'promote' and the resource 'idea to feature'. It details the action: creates a feature, stamps the idea, links them, and returns the feature id. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_feature' (which creates from scratch) and 'update_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 explains how to use the tool: resolve the id via 'list_ideas', only id is required, and suggests aligning the new feature to an initiative afterwards with 'update_feature'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but provides clear context and prerequisites.

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