Create a new idea with the given content and metadata

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds behavior beyond them: the mandatory confirmation requirement, the fact that provider errors count as failures even with HTTP 200, and the instruction to bound returned data via upstream fields. It stops short of describing return shape or failure modes in detail, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no obvious filler. It is slightly dense in the back half, but every clause carries operational 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 10-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the confirmation gate and error semantics but omits the relationship between the three input modes and any notion of what a successful response contains. It is adequate but not fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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 80%, so most parameters are already self-documenting. The description touches two of them (fields for bounding data, confirm for the confirmation gate) but does not clarify the mutual exclusivity of payload vs individual fields vs payload_file or the nested content structure, so it adds only marginal value over the schema.

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 states a specific verb+resource ("Create a new idea") and identifies the underlying operation (Buffer GraphQL createIdea), which cleanly separates it from read siblings like get_ideas and get_idea_groups. It does not, however, differentiate itself from write siblings such as create_content_item or create_post, leaving the agent to infer when an 'idea' is the right target.

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?

"Requires explicit confirmation" gives a real workflow precondition that maps to the confirm parameter, which is implied usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative routing (e.g. idea vs content item vs post), so an agent still has to infer selection from the resource name alone.

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