start_deliberation

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Durable' and 'Submit' hint that this launches a persistent background job, but the description fails to mention that this may incur cost, is asynchronous, creates resources, or should be tracked via get/tail/list tools.

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 sentence with no wasted words and a clear action first. However, it is concise to the point of being underspecified for the tool's complexity.

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 14 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, a one-line description is completely inadequate. Even though an output schema exists, the agent still lacks essential context about what a deliberation job is, how its inputs relate, what side effects occur, and how to interact with the resulting job.

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 schema has 14 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description adds no meaning for any of them. An agent is left to guess what protocol, committee, participants, max_cost_usd, continuation_id, and decision_options actually represent. The required field names provide only weak hints.

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 identifies the action ('Submit') and the resource ('a durable deliberation job'), which indicates this tool creates/starts a new deliberation. It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling tools like list_deliberations, get_deliberation, and cancel_deliberation, though it does not explicitly call out those distinctions.

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 provides no guidance about when to use start_deliberation versus resume_deliberation, list_deliberations, or cancel_deliberation. It also says nothing about use cases such as initial submission versus continuation, or when idempotency or force_new fields should be used.

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