mdan_party_mode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that sessions can be discussion, debate, or consensus, and that debate is linked to a decision record, but it doesn't disclose whether a session is ephemeral, whether it returns a transcript/report, or whether the decision record is actually persisted. The 'start' wording is mildly side-effect-like but not a clear contradiction of the read-only hint.

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?

Single, tightly-wound sentence with a front-loaded verb and a compact mode list. No filler or duplicated schema text.

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?

All three parameters are covered either by schema or description, and the read-only annotation supplies the safety model. However, there is no output schema and the description never says what a session returns or what 'start' implies in terms of execution, so an agent may not know what to expect after invocation.

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 schema documents topic and agents but leaves the mode enum undocumented; the description compensates by explaining what each mode means ('free discussion', 'structured debate (-> decision record)', 'consensus'). With 67% schema coverage, this is meaningful additional value for the key parameter.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Start') with a clearly defined resource ('a multi-agent session') and enumerates three session modes, so an agent can tell it apart from more general session or workflow tools. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the multi-agent scoping and mode list make the purpose unmistakable.

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 description communicates the general use case—launching a multi-agent discussion, debate, or consensus—but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as mdan_consult_agent or mdan_run_workflow, nor any exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the mode list.

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