Promote Idea

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it omits the most consequential facts for a mutation: whether the source Idea is consumed/removed or kept, whether the promotion is reversible, and what error occurs when 'task' is chosen with no claimed Goal. It does disclose one useful behavior — new tasks are appended at the end of the claimed Goal — which keeps it above a total blank.

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 tight sentence with the verb and both branches front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 two-parameter, non-nested tool with no output schema, the description covers the input-to-outcome mapping adequately, but it stops short of the post-state (is the Idea gone?) and failure conditions. Given no annotations to fall back on, the minimum-viable coverage is met but clear gaps remain.

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 50%: the schema documents 'idea' as an ID like 'i2' but leaves the 'to' enum bare. The description compensates by mapping each enum value to a distinct outcome ('task' = appended to the claimed Goal, 'goal' = new entry on the Roadmap), which is exactly the semantic the enum lacks.

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 transformation verb-resource pair ('Turn an Idea into a Task ... or into a new Goal') and names both possible outputs, which makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like record_idea, add_goal, and add_tasks. An agent can tell what comes in (an Idea) and what comes out (a Task or a Goal) without opening the schema.

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 only implied: promote an idea when it should become work rather than stay on the idea list. The phrase 'at the end of the claimed Goal' hints at a prerequisite (a goal must already be claimed), but the description never states when to choose 'task' over 'goal', nor what happens if no goal is claimed. No alternatives are named.

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