Update a Boardroom idea

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It correctly indicates a mutation operation ('Edit') and notes the required agent_id, which implies authentication/authorization. However, it does not disclose any side effects, error conditions, or concurrency behavior.

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?

The description is a single sentence of 17 words, well-structured with key information upfront. Every word is essential, and there is no filler.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description does not explain return values, success/failure indicators, or error scenarios. For an update operation, this information is important for the agent to interpret results.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only lists the editable fields (title, description, status) without explaining the required parameters agent_id or idea_id. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema itself.

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 action (Edit) and the resource (an idea), specifying the fields that can be changed (title, description, status) and listing the allowed statuses. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_idea, vote_on_idea, or promote_idea_to_todo.

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?

The description implies that use is for editing an existing idea's fields, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., promote_idea_to_todo, vote_on_idea). No context about prerequisites or exclusions is given.

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