debate_solo

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is potentially destructive. The description adds useful context like 'No external API key required' and 'caller generates both sides locally', but it does not disclose what destructive side effects occur or what happens to any created debate state.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the deprecation warning, and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place by either directing to the replacement or clarifying the tool's purpose.

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?

With 12 parameters, no output schema, and a destructive annotation, the description is too thin. It describes the core one-shot flow but omits optional parameters, return values, side effects, and edge cases, leaving the agent under-informed for a complex tool.

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%, and the description only vaguely references 'caller-supplied positions', giving slight meaning to deep_position and fresh_position. None of the other 12 parameters are explained, and the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 'Run a complete debate from caller-supplied positions in one call' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the multi-step sibling tools by calling itself a 'Single-terminal entry point' and explicitly pointing to debate() 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 first line directly says 'DEPRECATED (v0.4) — prefer debate(prompt, mode=...)' giving an explicit alternative. It also explains when this tool is used: 'Single-terminal entry point' and 'No external API key required', which helps the agent decide between a one-shot vs. interactive debate flow.

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