debate_review

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

The description adds context that this is a human-in-the-loop resume operation and lists the allowed actions ('approve', 'override', 'reject'). However, it does not disclose what each action does, any side effects, or whether the operation is reversible. Annotations are present (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and no contradiction exists, but richer behavioral detail is missing.

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 compact and front-loaded with the deprecation warning. Every sentence serves a purpose: deprecation/alternative, core function, and usage precondition. No filler or 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: it never explains what `override_content` is for, the semantics of each action, or what the tool returns after review. Although deprecated, the tool still needs enough context to be used correctly if invoked.

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 parameters. It only clarifies the `action` parameter ('Action is one of ...'), leaving `debate_id` and `override_content` unexplained. `override_content` is particularly important and undocumented.

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's purpose: 'Review and resume a paused auto-debate (HITL).' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings by referencing `debate_auto` and the preferred alternative `debate(prompt, mode=...)`.

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?

Usage is explicitly scoped: 'Call after `debate_auto` with `pause_at` paused the run.' It also provides an explicit alternative by stating 'DEPRECATED (v0.4) — prefer `debate(prompt, mode=...)`,' which covers when-not-to-use guidance.

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