debate_position

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the deprecation context, but does not disclose side effects such as session validation, position creation behavior, or return values. Minimal added context beyond annotations.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the critical deprecation warning before stating the action. No unnecessary words.

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 deprecated tool with only two simple parameters, pointing to the preferred debate tool provides the most essential context. However, it omits details about session state prerequisites or operation outcomes, which could be relevant if called directly. Still, it is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly maps 'content' to 'position' and 'session_id' to 'session' in the phrase 'from a session', without adding constraints, relationships, or usage details. This is insufficient compensation.

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 'Submit a position from a session' with a clear verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly deprecating and pointing to debate(prompt, mode=...) as the preferred alternative.

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 explicitly says 'DEPRECATED (v0.4) — prefer debate(prompt, mode=...)', providing a clear when-not-to-use directive and naming the alternative tool. This satisfies the explicit usage guideline criterion.

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