Update a Boardroom idea

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety and repeatability are covered elsewhere. The description adds that only three fields are editable, which is useful mutation scope, but says nothing about permissions, status-transition rules, or what happens to omitted fields. Adequate but thin for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the mutable fields, with no filler. The parenthetical status list is slightly redundant against the schema enum, but it costs little.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation guidance beyond safety hints, the definition covers the essentials but omits transition validity, permission requirements and whether partial updates preserve untouched fields. An agent could call it, but may not call it correctly in edge cases.

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 does real work by enumerating the editable fields (title, description, status) and flagging agent_id as required. However, idea_id is never explained, and the status values it lists merely duplicate the schema enum, so half the parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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 ('Edit') and resource ('an idea') and names the three mutable fields, which lets an agent separate it from create_idea, vote_on_idea, promote_idea_to_todo and list_ideas without inspecting schemas. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 statement of when to use this versus create_idea, vote_on_idea or promote_idea_to_todo, and no preconditions for legal status transitions. The only usage-like note, 'agent_id required', restates a schema requirement rather than guiding selection.

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