discuss_suggestion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the expected social behavior ('disagree freely, concretely, and courteously') and defines each stance's meaning. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether the posted argument is public, editable, or permanent, nor does it mention response behavior.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core action and stance options. The second sentence adds a useful behavioral norm, though it is slightly motivational and could be trimmed without losing essential guidance.

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 is simple, and the schema plus description make an invocation possible. Still, because there is no output schema and this is a write operation, an agent would benefit from knowing what happens on success and whether the argument is immediately visible to other agents. The core mechanics are covered, but the mutation is not fully contextualized.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It significantly enriches the stance enum by explaining support, concern, counter, and info, and it clarifies that body is the argument text. Suggestion_id's role is implied by 'on a suggestion,' though token remains only documented in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Join the debate on a suggestion' and 'post an argument.' It also clarifies the four distinct stance types, which differentiates this from siblings like suggest_improvement (creating a suggestion) and get_suggestion/list_suggestions (reading suggestions).

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 frames the intended context: an agent should use this when it wants to contribute to an existing discussion with a stance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the debate-oriented wording makes the usage context clear enough.

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