debate_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait: it returns role assignments and round rules but no dispatch_plan, so participants are spawned manually. It does not address persistence (whether a meeting record is created), permissions, or reversibility, leaving some gaps for a state-changing tool.

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-loads the one-line purpose, then uses a scannable bulleted round breakdown, then closes with the alternative. Every section earns its place; the four-round list is somewhat verbose but conveys genuinely distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, and the description correctly focuses on the round structure and the missing dispatch_plan. It leaves unstated whether a persistent meeting is created or what happens on partial failure, minor gaps for a 5-param orchestration 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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the judge default and team_id. The description adds the semantic framing of advocate/critic/judge roles but no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 (start a structured 4-round debate meeting) and enumerates exactly what that entails round by round. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like meeting_create, debate_code_review, and ecosystem_trigger_debate from the description alone.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'For ready-to-paste spawn calls use meeting_create(template="debate", participants=[...]) instead.' It also states the practical consequence of choosing this tool – that each participant must be spawned by hand.

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