agy_council_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-destructive profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: 'No model call', 'not authenticated' for initial context, and that summary 'archives without consensus' — but it omits return behavior and what happens on version mismatch.

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?

It is short and the core purpose is front-loaded, with zero filler sentences. But the dense semicolon chain of undefined terms makes it hard to parse, trading clarity for brevity.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves too much out: allowed 'kind' values, the meaning of question/answers_to, and any failure behavior. The domain is a multi-step council workflow, so this level of under-specification is inadequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it partially does: it ties 'references' and 'change_reason' to revision, 'evidence' to grounds, 'expected_plan_version' to plan, and 'initial_context' to collect. It says nothing about kind, content, question, answers_to, or discussion_id, leaving half of the 10 parameters 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 verb+resource is present ('Submit GPT/client public contribution'), but 'council note' and 'GPT/client' are jargon that an agent may not map to a note-posting operation. It does not distinguish this from the sibling agy_discussion_note, so the agent cannot tell which note tool to pick.

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 conditional guidance tied to kinds (collect/initial, revision, support, plan, summary) with required companions for each, which is real usage context. However the kinds are undefined in the schema (no enum, default 'observation') and it never says when to use this versus agy_discussion_note, so the guidance is only partially actionable.

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