social_verb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Submit' implies a write/mutation to a room, but the description discloses nothing about side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or rate limits. Only a doc pointer is offered.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then lists verbs and a doc pointer in three short lines. No wasted prose, though the doc reference pushes essential detail outside the definition.

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 tool has a nested payload object and an output schema (so return values need not be described), but with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the critical per-verb payload contract is deferred to an external file. An agent cannot reliably call this correctly from the definition alone.

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 usefully lists the valid verb values, but leaves the payload structure, room_id format, and ref_message_id semantics entirely to an external document the agent may not have. It only partially 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+resource: 'Submit a Quorus Social Protocol v1 verb to a room.' The enumeration of valid verbs (claim, release, disagree, defer, queue, vote, interrupt) further clarifies the operation. It does not, however, differentiate from overlapping siblings like send_message, send_room_message, claim_task, or release_task.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The definition never explains how it relates to siblings that clearly overlap (send_room_message, claim_task, release_task), leaving the agent to infer whether it should use this or those alternatives.

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