Brainstorm a new app idea

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent but non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the AI-provider prerequisite and the two-stage behavior (keyword proposal from the brief, then market checks), which an agent cannot infer from annotations. It omits cost/latency implications of the AI step and what is created, keeping it at 4.

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?

One sentence (plus a short prerequisite clause) with the action, scope, and mechanism front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is 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?

For a three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, selection condition, and the AI prerequisite. The only gap is that it doesn't indicate what the agent gets back (a new project id? a keyword list needing review?), which would help the follow-up call.

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 100%, so brief, store, and markets are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces brief and markets at a high level but adds no format, defaults, or constraints beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Create a brainstorm project") and pins the scope with "for an app that does not exist yet," which implicitly separates it from add_app/link_released_app. The follow-on clause explains the mechanism (AI proposes keywords from a brief, checks them in chosen markets), so an agent knows exactly what the call produces.

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 phrase "for an app that does not exist yet" gives a clear selection condition versus project-creation siblings, and "Requires a ready AI provider" states a prerequisite. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or when-not-to-use case, so it lands just below the top band.

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