brainstorm_collect

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, which already signals a non-destructive operation. The description adds transparency by explaining the three return outcomes (next prompt, synthesis prompt, final result) and the nested structure of responses required, without conflicting with the annotation. It could mention whether the session state is updated, but the return-value description suffices.

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 verbose but appropriately detailed for a multi-step workflow. It avoids redundancy and clearly structures the steps and return types. Some minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'brainstorm' mode), but it remains readable and direct.

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?

With readOnlyHint already provided, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage sequence, return types, and parameter details. It lacks mention of error conditions or session expiration, but for the tool's complexity, this is sufficient. Overall, it gives the agent enough context to use the tool correctly.

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?

All two required parameters (session_id and responses) are fully described in the schema with clear semantics. The description further clarifies the 'model' parameter by giving examples ('sonnet' or 'haiku') and emphasizes the requirement to collect responses for each model, enhancing the schema's clarity. Coverage is 100%.

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 tool's purpose: 'Submit collected model responses for a hosted brainstorm session.' It specifies the exact action (submit responses) and the resource (brainstorm session), and distinguishes it from siblings by referencing the workflow of the `brainstorm` tool.

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 when-to-use guidance: after receiving prompts from `brainstorm` (mode='hosted') or a previous `brainstorm_collect` call. It also explains the required workflow (execute each prompt per model using the model parameter) and lists the three possible return types, giving clear context for invocation.

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