Create an idea

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true (hits an external service), idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the confirm gate, which is genuinely useful in preventing accidental idea creation, but says nothing about auth, side effects, or what happens on a missing confirm.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps noted elsewhere rather than being an independent strength.

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?

A mutation tool with five parameters, 20% schema coverage, and no output schema needs more from the description than a confirm gate. The role of text vs. title, what services does, and whether organizationId is required-by-API are all unresolved.

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 only 20%: of five parameters, only confirm is documented anywhere. The description repeats confirm but leaves text, title, services, and organizationId entirely undefined, so an agent gets no semantics for the majority of inputs.

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 an idea on the idea board'), which clearly distinguishes it from list/read siblings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely related buffer_create_post, leaving the agent to infer the idea-board vs. post distinction.

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 only guidance is the confirm='idea' requirement, which is a safety prerequisite rather than a when-to-use rule. No condition is given for choosing this tool over buffer_create_post or buffer_list_ideas.

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