Relay a contest of a fragment

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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description goes well beyond by disclosing what is actually destroyed ('revokes it at once and for good: it leaves agent-visible memory, and its history stays on the evidence chain') and the opposite behavior for all other actions ('opens or joins a Mission Group review, and the fragment stays in use until the reviewers decide'). It even covers the edge case of contesting a fragment already out of review. This is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure a destructive tool needs.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the action list, then behavior and the sibling disambiguation. The long final clause about contests on already-reviewed fragments is dense, but every sentence carries distinct operational information; only mild tightening is possible.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and annotations already present, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: trigger conditions, the contributor-only restriction, the permanence of withdraw versus the review path for other actions, and the sibling alternative. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 the enum meanings, the 'human:' pattern, and the withdraw-requires-contributor rule are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates them. It adds only slight framing (the actions as the person's intent), not new syntax or constraints, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Relay a person's contest of a stored fragment') and immediately enumerates the five concrete actions (challenge, correct, supersede, withdraw, request re-elicitation), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It also names the sibling it is not (answer_whisper), making it distinguishable from the other nine tools in the list.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use it when a worker or reviewer says a fragment is wrong or outdated, or its contributor takes it back') and an explicit alternative-with-condition ('to answer a pending whisper, use answer_whisper'). It also states a precondition (only the contributor may withdraw), which routes the agent correctly before it even picks an action.

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