ecosystem_link_debate_meeting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the mutation (writes debate_meeting_id), the scope (onto every review in review_ids), the prerequisite ordering, and the downstream consumer (meeting_conclude's ecosystem_writeback). It omits failure behavior, overwrite/idempotency semantics, and any permission requirements.

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 role and the effect are front-loaded ('Stage 2 helper', then 'writes debate_meeting_id onto every review'), followed by the sequencing detail. Three tight sentences with no filler, though the backtick-heavy formatting is slightly noisy.

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 explained, and the description covers the prerequisite, the write target, and the consumer. For an unannotated mutation tool it could say more about failure or re-invocation behavior, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters, including their provenance (debate_start, ecosystem_trigger_debate). The description only restates that meeting_id is linked to review_ids, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (link) and the exact resources involved (a debate_start meeting id onto review rows), and positions itself as 'Stage 2' of a named workflow. An agent can distinguish it from debate_start, ecosystem_trigger_debate, and meeting_conclude 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 explicit timing: 'Called immediately after debate_start succeeds,' which tells the agent the triggering condition and prerequisite. It does not state when not to call it or what to do if debate_start fails, but the sequencing guidance is clear enough to route correctly.

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