create_idea

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses pipeline position, the topic-linking requirement, and the downstream transition, which is useful context. It does not state whether the call is idempotent, what happens on a bad/missing topic_id, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: pipeline position, trigger, prerequisite, and next step. Front-loaded with the step label and action verb, and no sentence is redundant 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?

There is no output schema, and the description implies an idea identity (id passed to promote_idea) without saying what the call returns. Apart from that, everything an agent needs to invoke a 5-parameter create tool correctly — trigger, prerequisite, and follow-up — is present.

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 100%, so every parameter including angle, source, raw_text, topic_id, and target_audience is already documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The description only reiterates the topic_id sourcing hint (list_topics) that the schema already gives, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 (Register) and resource (a new content idea) and scopes it under a Topic. The "[Pipeline step 2 — Discover]" tag and the next-step pointer to promote_idea distinguish it cleanly from siblings like create_content, list_ideas, 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ("when the agent discovers a new angle from research, competitor scan, user feedback"), a prerequisite ("list_topics first"), and the follow-up action (promote_idea → draft Content). An agent knows both when to call it and what comes next.

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