manage_idea

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

The description adds several behavioral facts not visible in annotations: create requires title, update requires idea_id, the operation returns the created/updated idea object, and delete is unsupported. It also gives the failure conditions and the archival workaround. The destructiveHint=true annotation is not contradicted; it is consistent with updates potentially overwriting existing data, and the description actually narrows that destructiveness by ruling out deletion.

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 organized with labeled sections (USE WHEN, Actions, Returns, FAILS WHEN) and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The only flaw is that the 'delete not available' note appears twice, adding minor redundancy without new information.

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 moderate parameter count, two enums, and no output schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke correctly: the action-dependent requirements, return object, and failure modes. It does not detail the structure of the returned idea object, but the high-level 'idea object' plus existing schema descriptions is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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?

The schema already describes all five parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds action-dependent semantics by stating that create uses title and update uses idea_id, and by naming the failure conditions for missing those fields. This clarifies how to combine the action enum with the other parameters beyond the schema's property-level descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb-plus-resource statement, 'Create or update an idea,' and goes on to enumerate the exact actions and their required fields, making the tool's role unmistakable. The explicit 'delete not available via API' sets the perimeter and helps distinguish it from other manage_* siblings. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides explicit use triggers via 'USE WHEN: "Add idea", "Update idea status"' which map to common agent intents. It also states when not to use it (delete) and the alternative 'archive ideas by updating status instead'. This is explicit enough to route an agent to the correct tool.

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