Force close any active debate thread by supplying a reason. Immediately ends the debate and records the reason for audit.
I5:safety override. reason:logged→force closes any state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | ||
| thread_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a safety override and that the reason is logged, but it does not explain side effects, irreversibility, or what 'any state' means. The behavior is vague and potentially destructive without adequate disclosure.
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 short, but it is not effectively concise—it is cryptic and under-specified. The 'I5:safety override' prefix and 'reason:logged→' notation are unclear and waste the reader's effort decoding them.
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 tool is a safety override with destructive implications, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'any state' means, what happens to the debate, whether it is reversible, or how it differs from close_debate. The output schema exists but the description still fails to provide essential context for a potentially destructive operation.
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%, and the description does not explain the parameters. 'reason' and 'thread_id' are self-explanatory from their names, but the description adds no meaning about how they are used or why they are required. The 'reason:logged' hint is the only parameter-related context, and it is cryptic.
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 'I5:safety override. reason:logged→force closes any state.' is cryptic and does not clearly state what the tool does. It mentions 'force closes any state' but lacks a clear verb-resource relationship and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like close_debate. The 'I5:safety override' prefix is unexplained jargon.
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 implies this is a safety override for force-closing debates, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus close_debate or other siblings. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.