submit_idea

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a mutation ('Save') scoped to the user's account, and references the website's Ideas page as known behavior. However, it does not mention response format, required authentication state, or side effects beyond creation.

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?

Three sentences that front-load the core action, then give usage context and an anti-hallucination warning. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter create tool, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and constraints. It lacks explicit return-value information, but the reference to the Ideas page and the existence of list_my_ideas partially mitigate this.

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 provides full descriptions for both title and description with length constraints, so the description's minimal mention of 'title + description' adds no new semantics. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 tool saves an idea to the user's CocoInbox account with title and description, and equates it to the website's Ideas page. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_my_ideas and request_missing_tool, which serve listing and tool-requesting purposes respectively.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the user wants to note a product/feature wish, or when no existing MCP tool covers their need' and instructs not to invent fake tools. This provides clear decision criteria for tool selection, though it doesn't name specific alternatives.

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