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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It indicates a write action ('Add') and a precondition ('open debate'), but does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, error behavior, or what happens if the debate is not open.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler or redundancy. The key action and target are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a bare input schema, so the description must provide more context. It does not mention return values, failure conditions, or the required relationship between debate_id and the proposal body, leaving gaps for a straightforward mutation tool.

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 0% and the description does not explain the parameters. While 'debate_id' and 'body' are somewhat self-explanatory by name, the description adds no meaning about expected format, constraints, or semantics beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and identifies the resource ('a proposal') and the target context ('an open debate'). This makes the core intent clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling actions like 'argue' or 'amend'.

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 'to an open debate' implies the tool is intended for adding proposals when a relevant debate is open, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or what conditions must hold. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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