update_idea_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Transition' implies mutation, but it says nothing about required permissions, whether a transition is reversible, whether archiving destroys data, or what happens on an invalid state change.

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 with no filler; every word carries information. The verb, the resource, and the valid values are all in one clause.

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?

The output schema means return values need no explanation, and the enumeration of statuses covers the most important ambiguity. But with zero annotation coverage the description should still state mutation side effects, permissions, or reversibility, and it says nothing about idea_id.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does supply the valid status values ('open, in_progress, completed or archived'), which the schema omits since status is a bare string — genuinely useful. However, idea_id semantics and the exact string casing/format are not clarified, so compensation is only partial.

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 ('Transition') and resource ('an idea') and enumerates the four target states, so the effect is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like record_idea or list_ideas, but the mutation-on-status framing is distinct enough that an agent can place it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or when this tool should not be used. Nothing tells the agent under what conditions a transition is appropriate versus recording a new idea.

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