Comment on deliberation

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior; the description adds that comments are weightless in the outcome and admissible only before close, which is real semantic context. The refusal-after-close code lives in the schema rather than here, so it isn't fully self-contained.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the constraint. Every clause earns its place; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 four-required-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, audience, timing, and effect, and the schema carries error codes and parameter detail. Only minor gaps (duplicate-comment behavior given non-idempotency) 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with examples and the error code for a closed deliberation. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 ('Record a comment on an open deliberation') and immediately scopes it against the tally ('carry no weight in the outcome'), so an agent can distinguish it from chap.deliberate.vote and chap.deliberate.close without opening any 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?

Gives clear conditions: any participant, at any point before chap.deliberate.close. It implicitly separates this from voting (comments have no effect on outcomes), which is useful routing. It does not name an explicit alternative tool or a 'do not use when' case, so it falls short of 5.

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