Run one round of a group

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

Annotations only say destructive/non-idempotent/open-world; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing what seats see, that parallel answers commit together while serial ones commit one-by-one, that failed/blocked/cancelled seats are recorded as absent with serial rounds continuing, and that there are no retries or per-seat deadlines.

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 action and the wait_round handoff before any behavioral detail, which is the right ordering. It is dense but every sentence carries behavioral content; the later sentences are long and run together, slightly taxing to parse.

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?

Covers execution semantics, failure handling, and the round_id return path, and an output schema exists so return values need no elaboration. It omits prerequisites such as whether the group must be opened first and how this interacts with cancel_round, the one gap for a 5-parameter mutating orchestration tool.

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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretive meaning to the `order` parameter by explaining the commit timing consequences of parallel vs serial that the schema only sketches. It does not clarify group_id or the privacy semantics of `instructions` beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Start one round') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling wait_round by naming it and the round_id handoff. An agent can select it against open_group/wait_round/cancel_round 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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance: run non-blocking, then call wait_round with the returned round_id. It does not cover when-not-to-use or the relationship to cancel_round/open_group, so it stops short of full routing.

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