kill_idea

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does clarify the key effect: the idea stops being suggested rather than necessarily being deleted. However, it omits permissions, reversibility, and whether the kill can be undone.

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 wasted clauses. The resource, required reason, and outcome are all stated compactly.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core operation and reason parameter. It remains incomplete on permissions, permanence, and idea_id semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that a reason is supplied, but adds no detail about idea_id, identifier format, or constraints on the reason string.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Kill an idea on the board") and states the resulting effect ("so it stops being suggested"). That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like add_idea and list_ideas without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is implied by the stated outcome: use this when an idea should stop being suggested. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, so it is only minimum-viable guidance.

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