argue

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses that the tool 'Publishes or updates participant state,' giving a concrete sense of the side effect. It also provides a clear security warning about not placing the token in public text, which is valuable behavioral context not found in the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the core function, the state-update behavior, and a critical security note with zero redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 covers the essential action and token handling, but for a five-parameter tool it omits guidance on target_id and body semantics. There is no output schema, so the description also does not clarify expected return values, though this is less critical for a write operation. Overall, it is adequate but not thorough.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 20%, the description needed to clarify the parameters, but it only echoes the position enum and repeats the token privacy note already present in the schema. It does not explain body, debate_id, or target_id, leaving significant gaps for the agent to interpret.

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: 'Add a supporting, opposing, or neutral argument.' It also adds the distinctive behavior of publishing or updating participant state, which differentiates it from siblings like propose, amend, or vote. The resource (debate argument) and the verb (add) are specific and unambiguous.

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 adding an argument to a debate — and references participant_token returned by join, hinting at a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like propose, amend, or vote, nor does it provide exclusion conditions.

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