debate_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses async behavior (returns immediately, background loop), polling requirement, cancellation capability, and auto-archiving in SQLite. However, it doesn't mention needed permissions or potential destructive actions.

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?

The description is concise with three short paragraphs. It front-loads the action and return value, then explains background processing, and ends with use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description fails to cover inputs. It does explain the async pattern and return of debate_id, but the lack of parameter guidance makes it incomplete.

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%, yet the description does not explain any parameters. The 7 parameters (e.g., agents, topic, max_turns) are only named in the schema, leaving the agent to infer meaning from names alone.

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 'Start an async round-robin debate' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like debate_status and debate_cancel by explicitly mentioning polling and cancellation. The use cases further clarify its purpose.

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 provides explicit use cases for long deliberation, stepping away, and needing a transcript. It mentions polling and cancellation as alternatives. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the context implies it's for non-immediate results.

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