debate_join

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds the 'fresh or semi-fresh' mode but does not explain side effects, session behavior, or error scenarios. It provides some context beyond annotations but lacks depth.

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 brief, front-loaded sentences. The deprecation notice is immediately actionable, and there is no redundant content.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and a sparse description. It does not explain what joining entails, return values, or delivery_mode semantics, making it incomplete for reliable invocation. The deprecation and alternative mitigate the need but do not fully compensate.

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. It implicitly explains 'role' via 'fresh or semi-fresh session', but 'delivery_mode' remains entirely unexplained, and 'debate_id' format/constraints are not addressed. The description does not add sufficient meaning for reliable invocation.

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 the tool joins an existing debate as a fresh or semi-fresh session, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself by noting deprecation and preferring debate(prompt, mode=...), which differentiates from sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly says it is deprecated and prefers debate(prompt, mode=...), providing a clear alternative and when-not-to-use. It also indicates the specific use case of joining an existing debate, giving context for usage.

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