calibrated_consult_open

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the critical trait that this is a mutation ("Пишет запись (Rule 0)"), which is valuable, but it does not cover permissions, idempotency, re-call behavior, or what exactly gets recorded. "Rule 0" is unexplained jargon rather than usable disclosure.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity and the anti-overreliance framing before the sequencing instructions. No filler, though the density of Russian jargon and "Rule 0" reduces immediate clarity.

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 4-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description conveys the workflow and the write behavior but leaves the parameter contract and side effects largely unexplained. Adequate for sequencing, incomplete for actually invoking it correctly.

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 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only implies the meaning of prior_confidence by giving the range "(0..1)", which adds a little beyond the bare "number" type; question, prior_call, and prior_abstain are never explained.

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 concrete verb+resource ("зафиксировать ТВОЮ позицию + уверенность" – record your position and confidence) and explicitly frames itself as a tool, not advice ("ИНСТРУМЕНТ (не совет)"). It also names the sibling it pairs with (calibrated_consult_close), so it is distinguishable, though the purpose is somewhat entangled with the multi-step workflow.

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?

Explicit sequencing: call in calibrated-consult mode BEFORE asking the council, then call calibrated_consult_close AFTER the response. The alternative sibling is named with its condition. No explicit when-not guidance, but the ordering is unambiguous.

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