respond_discussion

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavioral detail: the expect guard explains that a mismatch presses nothing and returns the real buttons, which is a genuine safety/verification behavior. It also documents the multi-leader return behavior (still_pending, next, gate). It does not say whether a press is irreversible or what happens on an invalid button_id.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then expect semantics, then the queued-leader behavior. Dense but every clause carries operational information (guard behavior, ids range, return fields); nothing is restated from the name or schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return signals (still_pending, next, gate) and the mismatch path. For a two-parameter, no-annotation interaction tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for expect: purpose (words the button text must contain), an example ('no interest'), and the fallback behavior on mismatch. button_id gets its valid range (1-4) and its source, though not its failure mode for out-of-range or stale ids.

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?

States a specific action (press one of the response buttons) with its source (listed by discussion(), ids 1-4) and its domain (AI demands, warnings, requests, post-deal remarks). An agent can distinguish this from discussion() reads, dismiss_discussion, and answer_popup without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context for use (dialogue screens offering choices such as apologise / dismiss / threaten) and names the upstream tool that supplies valid ids, plus the multi-leader sequencing rule ('answer that one next, no discussion() read needed'). It does not explicitly rule out cases or name siblings like dismiss_discussion/answer_popup as alternatives, so it stops short of a full when/when-not matrix.

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