propose

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the operation publishes or updates participant state, which is useful because idempotentHint is false and repeated calls may update state. It also emphasizes token confidentiality, which is critical behavior for the agent to follow.

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 sentences, front-loaded action, and no filler. The security warning earns its place because it changes invocation behavior.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers how to obtain the token, how to use it safely, and what action is performed. It only lacks explicit guidance on when propose is preferred over argue or amend.

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 33%, but the description adds little parameter meaning beyond the token: body and debate_id are left to inference from 'proposal' and 'open debate.' The token guidance mostly repeats the schema's own field description, so the low-coverage gap is not compensated.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Add a proposal to an open debate.' This clearly identifies the action and resource and is enough to distinguish it from siblings like vote, amend, and argue, which concern different contribution types.

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 an explicit prerequisite: the participant_token must come from join, and it adds a security rule: never put the token in public text. It does not explicitly contrast this with argue or amend, so there is clear context but no exclusions.

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