Propose a Boardroom idea

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It does add useful context that this is a legacy compatibility path, but it says nothing about what the created record actually is or where it lands.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the compatibility framing and followed by the routing advice. The trailing 'agent_id required' is redundant against the schema but is the only wasted 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?

For a creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the alias status and preferred alternative but leaves the lifecycle unclear — whether the idea becomes a boardroom entry, how it relates to list_ideas or promote_idea_to_todo, or what a legacy caller gets back.

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 67%, and the only parameter remark — 'agent_id required' — merely repeats the schema's required list. The description adds no meaning about what agent_id represents or how title/description are used.

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 identifies this as a compatibility alias for the older Ideas intake, which implies it submits an idea, but it never states the verb plainly ('creates an idea') and leans on the name/title to convey the action. It does distinguish itself from brain_dump, which helps the agent 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?

It explicitly names the preferred alternative (brain_dump) and gives a reason (the anti-dust triage contract), which is real routing guidance. What's missing is the positive condition — when a caller should still use this legacy alias.

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