ecosystem_link_debate_meeting

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

The description reveals that the tool writes 'debate_meeting_id' onto reviews, which is a behavioral trait beyond the input schema. However, with no annotations provided, it omits details like idempotency, error handling, or whether the write is destructive. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first states the purpose, second adds usage context, third explains the effect and reason. It is front-loaded and contains zero wasted words.

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 existence of an output schema, the description correctly avoids explaining return values. It covers the full workflow context (the hook that uses the written data), making it self-contained for an agent to understand when and why to invoke the 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context by referencing the origin of the parameters (e.g., 'returned by debate_start'), but this does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'link debate_start meeting id back to review rows'. It specifies the action (link/write), the resource (review rows), and distinguishes itself as a 'Stage 2 helper' in the debate workflow, setting it apart from sibling tools like debate_start and ecosystem_trigger_debate.

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 description explicitly says 'Called immediately after debate_start succeeds', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly exclude other contexts or mention alternatives, but the sequential dependency is well-communicated.

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