agora_create_debate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two meaningful behaviors: positions are named, the participant limit is a hard cap, and no winner/score is ever produced. It omits permissions, whether the debate starts immediately on creation, and what happens if the cap is exceeded.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably undersized for a 4-parameter creation tool rather than bloated.

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-value explanation is not required. But with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description should do more on prerequisites and parameter semantics than it does; the purpose is complete but the operational context is thin.

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 4 parameters. The description loosely implies the roles of positions ("named positions") and max_participants ("hard participant cap"), but says nothing about space_id or question, and gives no format hints (e.g., position cardinality, default value of 2). It only half-compensates for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: "Create a structured Debate with named positions and a hard participant cap." An agent can immediately distinguish this from agora_list_debates, agora_join_debate, or agora_set_debate_position. However, it never explicitly names a sibling or the boundary against neighboring creation tools like create_challenge or create_mission.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must the agent already be in the space_id?), and no pointer to alternatives. The "no winner or score" remark is contextual framing, not routing guidance.

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