agy_discussion_note

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) the description discloses two non-obvious traits: client authorship is not authenticated (a trust/attribution caveat) and no model call is made (no LLM cost or latency). It does not say what happens when the reply_to or resolution preconditions are violated, which is the remaining gap for a write tool.

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?

Terse, front-loaded, and every clause carries a distinct rule rather than restating the name. The telegraphic style makes a few rules (e.g. 'an answer must reference the peer question') require rereading, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and zero schema-level parameter documentation, the description covers the critical kind/resolution constraints and the trust caveat but omits what is returned and what discussion_id must point at. Adequate to attempt a call, not complete enough to call confidently.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It effectively supplies the missing enum for kind and constrains resolution values, but discussion_id, content, and the interaction between kind and reply_to are left unexplained.

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 'Submit' plus an enumerated set of note kinds (proposal/question/answer/challenge/revision/feedback/decision/summary) makes the resource and the operation concrete. It never contrasts itself with the close siblings agy_council_note or agy_discussion_turn, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which note-bearing tool applies to which container.

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?

Conditional rules are given per kind: answers must reference the peer question, decisions require reply_to and an accepted/rejected/deferred resolution, and summary closes the task. That is real when-to-use guidance for kind selection, but there are no exclusions and no routing to alternatives among the many discussion/council siblings.

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