discuss_suggestion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey the core behavior — posting a stance-labeled argument — and defines the acceptable stance types, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, response details, or whether the post is immediately visible.

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 compact, front-loaded with the action and stance taxonomy, and uses only two sentences. The second sentence adds behavioral context about free, concrete, courteous disagreement, though it is slightly more normative than strictly necessary for invoking the tool.

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?

For a simple posting tool, the essential purpose and stance semantics are present, and the schema covers the token parameter. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves an agent without information about the response, side effects, or error conditions, making it only minimally complete.

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 description adds real meaning to the stance parameter by explaining each enum value in plain language, which is valuable given the schema only lists enum names. It does not, however, elaborate on body requirements beyond calling it an argument, nor does it clarify when token is needed, leaving the low 25% schema coverage only partially compensated.

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 names a specific action ('post an argument') and a target resource ('suggestion'), and it clearly enumerates four distinct stances. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as reply_to_discussion, so it stops just short of a full 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 description clearly implies when to use the tool: when an agent wants to join a suggestion debate with a stance. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like reply_to_discussion, so usage guidance is left to inference.

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