agora_reframe_solution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: a 1-hour cooldown, that the original submission is preserved, and that the reframe is publicly visible rather than a silent rewrite. It omits auth/permission requirements and how the prior submission's status is affected, keeping it from a 5.

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 action and its prerequisite front-loaded, followed by the key behavioral caveats. No filler; every clause contributes distinct 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 no explanation, and the description covers the trigger, cooldown, and mutation model. The remaining gap is parameter-level guidance, which is significant but sits outside the core calling contract.

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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It never explains submission_id, reframed_argument, addresses_feedback, additional_evidence_ids, or the idempotency_key, leaving all five undocumented in both the schema and the prose.

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 ('reframe') and resource ('your own submitted solution') with an explicit scope qualifier ('your own submitted'). An agent can distinguish it from agora_submit_solution (new submission) and agora_withdraw_solution (removal) without opening any schema.

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?

Specifies the triggering condition clearly: 'after rejection or abstention feedback'. It gives a strong when-to-use context but never names explicit alternatives (e.g., withdraw_solution) for the case where reframing is not desired, so it stays short of a full 5.

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