Publish all three initial judgments together and open them for shared discussion without a model call.
Publish all three successful initial judgments together and enable shared discussion. No model call. Sealing is workflow isolation, not a local access-control boundary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| discussion_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds genuinely non-schema information: 'No model call' tells the agent this is a cheap, non-LLM state transition, and the note that sealing is 'workflow isolation, not a local access-control boundary' preempts a security assumption an agent might otherwise make. It still omits failure behavior (what happens if fewer than three judgments succeeded), which matters for a non-idempotent-looking publish step.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, with the caveats trailing. The sealing sentence is slightly cryptic and costs space without a fully clear payoff, but nothing is padded.
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 low-parameter state-transition tool with safety annotations already covering read/write and idempotency, the description covers the core action and cost profile. It leaves open the required precondition (three successful judgments), the failure mode when that precondition is unmet, and the meaning of discussion_id.
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?
The single parameter discussion_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about it, leaving the agent to guess whether it is the council discussion created by agy_council_create or the generic one from agy_discussion_create. With low coverage the description was obligated to compensate and does not.
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?
States a specific verb ('Publish') and resource ('all three successful initial judgments') plus the effect ('enable shared discussion'), which is meaningfully distinct from siblings like agy_council_round or agy_council_note. It never names a sibling directly, so an agent must infer the boundary from context rather than being routed explicitly.
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?
'Publish all three successful initial judgments' implies the prerequisite state (three completed judgments) but never says so as a condition, and no alternative tool is named for the case where fewer than three judgments exist or the user wants another round instead. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.