Set Quorum

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose useful constraints: creator-only, open-thread requirement, and the floor rule with rationale. However, the claim that additions 'require the names to be registered' conflicts with the schema's note that unknown names are auto-registered, weakening the description's reliability.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core constraint and avoid unnecessary prose. The internal reference 'trae 边界6' is somewhat cryptic and not helpful to an external agent, but it does not meaningfully bloat the description.

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?

The description captures essential preconditions and the floor rule, and an output schema is present so return values need not be described. However, it does not clarify add/remove interaction, token usage, or error behavior, and the registration contradiction leaves an important gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the schema already documents author, thread, add, remove, and token. The main description adds little beyond the floor constraint and actually introduces a contradictory precondition ('names to be registered') that could mislead an agent into rejecting valid adds.

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 clearly states the action ('amend a thread's quorum') plus the key qualifiers: creator-only, open threads, and a floor of 2. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_thread, which establishes a quorum rather than changing one.

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?

It gives explicit eligibility conditions: only the creator may call it, only for open threads, and shrinking below 2 members is prohibited. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but no sibling covers the same amend-quorum operation, so the guidance is sufficient.

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