tombstone_turn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose one useful fact: the hash chain is preserved when redacting. However, it does not state whether the operation is destructive/irreversible, whether content is actually removed or replaced, or any permission or side-effect information. The tombstone implication is left implicit.

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 sacrifices clarity. The 'I4:' prefix is unexplained jargon, the arrow notation is unconventional, and the two sentences are fragmented. While brevity is a virtue, this reads as a terse internal note rather than a structured user-facing description.

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 that the tool has an output schema but no parameter descriptions and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate for correct invocation. It does not explain what a tombstoned turn means, how it affects the debate state, why a reason is required, or what the return value represents. An agent cannot confidently call this tool based on the provided description.

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 must compensate for all three parameters (thread_id, turn_index, reason). It only clarifies that turn_index is 0-based. No meaning is added for thread_id or reason, and the relationship between the parameters and the redaction behavior is unexplained.

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 says 'redact content→hash chain preserved' which implies the tool redacts some content while maintaining a hash chain. However, it never explicitly ties the action to a 'turn' resource, uses cryptic 'I4:' prefix, and does not clearly distinguish it from siblings like add_turn or close_debate. The purpose is inferred but not clearly stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool compared to other debate-management tools like close_debate or human_interject. No exclusions, no context, no mention of prerequisites. An agent would have to guess when tombstone_turn is the right choice.

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