alcove_idea_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only says 'Add a low-friction idea,' implying a simple creation, but does not disclose idempotency, side effects, or whether it modifies other data. Critical behavioral traits like whether it requires a workspace or home are omitted.

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 very short (one sentence), which is efficient but at the cost of missing essential parameter context. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but does not earn its place by providing sufficient detail for proper use.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema whose content is unknown, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain parameter roles or the nature of the returned object.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about parameters. The only clue is that title is required, but home, tags, notes, and workspace are unexplained. The agent cannot infer their purpose from the description alone.

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 'Add' and resource 'idea', and the qualifier 'low-friction' hints at simplicity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like alcove_idea_list (list) and alcove_idea_promote (promote). However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a low-friction idea, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Siblings like alcove_idea_promote or alcove_idea_list are not compared.

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