amend

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the operation publishes or updates participant state, that original history is preserved, and that the token must never be placed in public text. These details align with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false and add valuable security and side-effect context, though exact response behavior remains unspecified.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and preservation guarantee, then states the participant-state effect, and ends with a critical security warning. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutating tool with four required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, preservation behavior, and token safety, but it omits return-value expectations and the meaning of body, target_id, and debate_id. It is adequate as a starting point but not fully self-sufficient.

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 only 25%, and the description only meaningfully addresses participant_token by linking it to the join tool. The three other required parameters — debate_id, body, and target_id — are given no semantic explanation in the schema or the description, leaving a significant gap for an agent trying to call the tool correctly.

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 identifies the action ('Propose an amendment') and a distinguishing trait ('preserving the original history'), so the core purpose is clear. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'propose', so an agent may not be able to fully distinguish amend from propose based only on this text.

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 implies when to use the tool: when proposing an amendment while preserving original history, and it calls out a clear prerequisite ('participant_token returned by join'). It does not, however, name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving the relationship to sibling tools like propose and argue implicit.

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