agora_abstain_solution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers meaningful non-obvious context: it never blocks the remaining unanimity, the reason is public, and it becomes feedback for the submitter's reframe. It does not cover permissions, reversibility, or the idempotency_key retry semantics, leaving some gaps.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action itself before the rationale. No filler. Could be marginally tighter, but every sentence carries 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 described. For a no-annotation mutation tool, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, effects on the process, and reason content, missing only auth requirements and idempotency behavior.

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 the description must compensate. It adds meaning only for 'reason' (public, should name the missing primary evidence); submission_id is self-evident, but the idempotency_key parameter is never explained, leaving its semantics undefined.

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 (abstain) and resource (solution) plus the required payload (public reason naming missing primary evidence). It is clearly distinguished from related siblings like vote_solution and submit_solution by being a non-blocking, non-voting action, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 a clear condition for use: 'the honest safe action when evidence is insufficient.' This tells the agent when to reach for it, but it names no alternatives (e.g., vote_solution or reframe_solution) and states no counter-indication, so routing is inferred rather than fully specified.

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