chap.deliberate.comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: comments are retained with the deliberation and in the audit log, so reasoning survives the vote. However, it does not disclose permissions, mutability, response behavior, or the closed-deliberation error beyond what the schema already states.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource while immediately explaining why the tool exists. There is no wasted wording or redundant repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the simplicity of the operation and the rich 100%-coverage schema, the description plus schema provide enough context for correct invocation. The only notable omission is any statement about the return value, but for a record-comment operation, that is a minor gap.

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%, and the param descriptions are already detailed, including the source of deliberation_id and the -32032 refusal for closed deliberations. The main description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Record') and a specific resource ('comment on an open deliberation'), then clarifies the purpose: putting reasoning on the audit log alongside votes. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like chap.deliberate.vote, chap.deliberate.open, and chap.deliberate.close.

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 intended use is implied: use it when a participant wants to attach reasoning to an open deliberation that should be preserved in the audit log. The restriction to open deliberations is present, but the description does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives such as whisper.ask/answer or explain when comment is the right tool versus vote.

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