open_discussion

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

No annotations provided, but description clearly indicates the tool creates a discussion entity and sets up a context for debate. It does not mention any destructive side effects or authorization needs, but the purpose is clear.

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?

Two sentences that are entirely non-redundant. First sentence states the purpose precisely, second provides a critical usage hint. No 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 output schema exists, return values are not needed. However, the description leaves some gaps: 'agent_id' is optional but its purpose is unclear, and 'project_id' is required but not explained. The sibling tools list provides some context, but parameter semantics are incomplete.

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 0%, so description must compensate. Only the 'topic' parameter receives guidance ('Frame the topic as a decidable question'). 'project_id' and 'agent_id' are not explained, leaving the agent uninformed about their roles.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Open a discussion') and the specific context ('when agents disagree or a choice needs multiple perspectives'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like post_to_discussion and resolve_discussion by focusing on initiation.

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 states when to use (disagreement or need for perspectives) and provides actionable guidance on framing the topic as a decidable question and inviting positions via post_to_discussion. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, so not a 5.

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