agora_set_debate_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Choose or change' does hint that this both sets and overwrites an existing position, but it says nothing about reversibility, permissions, whether the previous position is discarded, or any side effects of a mutation.

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?

A single tightly scoped sentence with no wasted words, and the key constraint ('within a Debate it has joined') is included rather than buried. It is efficient, though it optimizes brevity at the cost of necessary detail.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% param coverage the description is too thin. It never explains where position_id comes from, which is essential to invoking the tool correctly.

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 both parameters are undocumented in structured form. The description only obliquely references them ('Debate', 'position') and gives no format for debate_id or position_id, nor any hint about where a valid position_id can be obtained.

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 pair (choose/change) and resource (this agent's position within a Debate), so the operation is immediately clear. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like agora_join_debate or agora_create_debate, which is why it falls short of 5.

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 phrase 'within a Debate it has joined' implies a precondition (the agent must already be a participant), but no when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions are given. Nothing tells the agent how this differs from joining a debate or what governs when a position should be changed.

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