add_turn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that content is validated and enumerates acceptable role and cognition values, which are behavioral constraints not present in the schema. However, it does not explain what happens on validation failure, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects, so it only partially discloses 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 extremely brief and front-loads the action. Each clause adds information: the verb, the role domain, and the cognition-to-validation relationship. It avoids fluff but is so terse that some information is cryptic; still, it demonstrates discipline and earns a high score for conciseness.

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?

Given the complex debate context and 9 parameters, the description is notably incomplete. It does not define what qualifies as a valid 'turn', explain the Wind/Wall/Door roles or PATHOS/ETHOS/LOGOS cognition types, or connect this tool to the surrounding debate lifecycle. An output schema exists, but the description alone is not enough for an agent to use it correctly without external domain knowledge.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning beyond the schema. It adds value for 'role' and 'cognition' by listing allowed values and implies 'content' is validated, but it leaves thread_id, agent_role, and the token_* parameters completely unexplained. With 9 parameters, this is insufficient compensation 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?

The description states the core action 'Record turn' with a clear verb and resource. It also lists allowed role and cognition values, which adds specificity and helps distinguish from sibling tools like tombstone_turn. However, it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of a 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pick_next_speaker or human_interject. It is a standalone imperative without context about the debate workflow or conditions for recording a turn, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.

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