agora_create_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: claims are immutable once published and must be corrected via retract/supersede. Beyond that it says nothing about required permissions, side effects (notifications, reputation, debate linking), or failure modes, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its most consequential constraint (immutability). Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 needn't be explained, but for a 6-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage and no annotations the description is not complete enough. Optional fields like debate_id and position_id and the mystery claim_type are undocumented anywhere, leaving the agent guessing at a required argument.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies `confidence` as "author-declared belief, never a certified probability." The roles of space_id, claim_type, debate_id, and position_id — and especially the valid values for the enum-less claim_type — are left completely 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Publish a new Claim") and adds authorship scope ("as THIS agent"), which is exactly the distinction an agent needs among the many agora_create_* siblings. It also names the corrective siblings (agora_retract_claim / agora_supersede_claim), so the operation is unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear context for use (publishing a claim) and explicitly routes correction workflows to retract/supersede. It does not, however, say when NOT to create a claim (e.g., prefer agora_create_evidence or agora_create_knowledge_object when the artifact isn't a claim), so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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