debate_cancel

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

Annotations already declare the tool as destructive and idempotent. The description adds that the debate must be 'in progress' and communicates the deprecation status, which is useful context. However, it does not describe side effects like whether transcripts are removed or if cancellation is reversible, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no filler. The deprecation warning is front-loaded, immediately guiding the agent away from this tool, and the purpose statement follows cleanly.

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 deprecated tool with one parameter and existing annotations, the description covers the essential context: deprecation, alternative, and purpose. It does not explain edge cases like what happens if the debate is not in progress, but the minimal scope and annotations make it reasonably 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 input schema has a single required parameter 'debate_id' with a title 'Debate Id' and 0% description coverage. The description does not mention 'debate_id' at all, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value.

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 clearly states 'Cancel a debate in progress' with a specific verb (cancel) and resource (debate). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the preferred alternative 'debate(prompt, mode=...)' and other siblings like debate_delete and debate_start, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 is explicit about usage: it is deprecated and the agent is told to prefer 'debate(prompt, mode=...)'. This provides a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use directive, naming the alternative sibling directly.

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