debate_start

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

Annotations already flag destructive and non-idempotent behavior; the description adds that the tool 'Creates a debate and a Deep (full-context) session' and that the returned debate_id enables the fresh session to join. This provides context beyond the annotations, though it does not detail all side effects.

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 short sentences with deprecation status front-loaded. It is concise, and every sentence adds value—deprecation warning, purpose, and workflow hint.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description only covers the prompt and vaguely mentions the returned debate_id. It omits parameter semantics and return value structure, and while deprecation redirects to another tool, the existing tool's description is still incomplete.

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 mentions 'prompt' conceptually as a decision prompt. The other five parameters (target_lease, allowed_sources, blocked_sources, context_sources, context_documents) are completely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action: 'Begin a new debate session with a decision prompt' and tells that it creates a debate and Deep session. It also distinguishes from the sibling debate tool by explicitly directing users to '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?

It gives explicit guidance to prefer 'debate(prompt, mode=...)' instead, which is a clear alternative. It also explains the usage flow: 'Share the returned debate_id with the fresh session so it can join.'

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