federation_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It adds real context: state is persisted locally in .consilium/ and executors run roles on their own models, which tells the agent this is a stateful, multi-model orchestration entry point. It still omits lifecycle, permissions, and whether openings are idempotent or reversible.

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?

Front-loaded with the role/resource, and the plan structure is embedded compactly. It is dense and jargon-heavy with parentheticals, but every clause carries information and nothing is redundant padding.

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 coordinator tool sitting in a large async workflow (claim, submit, heartbeat, poll, cancel), the description says nothing about the session lifecycle, how opened sessions are consumed by sibling tools, or what a caller gets back. Combined with 0% param coverage and no output schema, meaningful gaps remain.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does document the nested shape of the 'plan' parameter ({role, advisor_dir, question, replicas?}), which the bare array schema does not, and 'replicas' maps to the N replicas / replicas_default concepts. But session_id is never explained, so compensation is only partial.

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 action (queue a role plan into N replicas as a multi-brain council coordinator) plus the resource (federation council), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like federation_claim or federation_assemble. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The closing note 'Personal/attended (optional multi-brain mode)' hints at the usage context, implying this is the attended/personal entry point. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no reference to the surrounding federation_claim/submit/poll workflow, leaving usage largely inferred.

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