update_idea

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two most important traits: it is a partial update ('Only the fields given change') and note is appended rather than replacing. It says nothing about permissions, behavior on an unknown id, reversibility, or side effects, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence plus one short clarifying clause. Nothing is redundant, and the most load-bearing fact (only given fields change) is placed last for emphasis without padding.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the core semantics but omits error behavior, permission requirements, and whether the updated idea is returned. Adequate to call correctly for the common case, incomplete for edge 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 33%: only due and note are documented, and the schema already covers both. The description maps human terms ('due date') to parameters and adds the partial-update rule, but gives no formats or limits for title, details, or project, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 (Edit) and resource (idea) and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent can tell it apart from status-oriented siblings like park_idea, complete_idea, and snooze_idea. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: by listing title/details/project/due/note, it implies status transitions belong to other tools. There is no explicit 'use this when X, use delete_idea when Y' routing, and no prerequisites such as needing an existing id.

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