Update Idea

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: omitted fields are unchanged, status updates have a special promoted path, and the tool returns the updated idea. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the 'promoted' side effect and the partial-update semantics.

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 two sentences and immediately states the core action and key constraints. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds critical usage notes without fluff. Every clause adds useful information.

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 4-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value, optional fields, id resolution, status exclusions, and the minimum required input. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most contexts.

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 all parameters with descriptions, but the description adds value by summarizing the partial-update behavior ('omitted fields unchanged'), clarifying that only id is required, and explaining the status enum's promoted value should be handled via promote_idea. This enriches the schema's information.

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 'Update' with a specific resource ('an idea's title / body / status') and notes the return behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like promote_idea and create_idea by explicitly directing promoted status to promote_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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it says to use promote_idea for setting status to 'promoted', and advises resolving the id via list_ideas. It also clarifies that only id is required, setting clear expectations for invocation.

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