Colloquium Update Rule Of Motion

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself, but it only states the intended modification. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether existing settings are overridden), permissions required, idempotency, or whether the operation is reversible. The absence of such details leaves the tool's behavior opaque.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence that names the verb and the key objects. It is appropriately brief, front-loaded with the action, and contains no extraneous information. The structure is clean and easy 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?

The tool has three optional parameters and an output schema, but the description does not mention the nature of the output, error handling, or any side effects. It also does not clarify whether multiple parameters can be updated simultaneously. The provision of an output schema without any description of its contents makes the tool under-specified.

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?

The schema defines three parameters without descriptions, and the description only loosely links 'turn structure' to rule_type, 'consensus threshold' to consensus_threshold, and 'active topic' to topic. It does not explain allowed values (e.g., the enum options), the meaning of the numeric threshold (range, scale), or whether parameters interact or are mutually exclusive. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Update') and the specific resource ('colloquium') along with the exact realms affected ('turn structure, consensus threshold, or active topic'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like colloquium_get_session and colloquium_interject, which handle retrieval and speaking respectively.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions under which an update is appropriate, or any relationship to the other colloquium tools. Users are left to infer when this action is needed.

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