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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: contributions are immutable, attribution and disagreement are preserved, votes are advisory, and the server independently verifies criteria and review IDs. The idempotentHint annotation already covers idempotency, so no repetition is needed. No contradiction exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and accepted types come first, followed by vote-specific constraints, then behavioral semantics. Every sentence adds distinct information without redundancy.

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 nine parameters, nested objects, mutual exclusions, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain idempotency_key semantics, how to reference review IDs, what response or confirmation the caller receives, or how immutability affects subsequent edits or corrections.

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, but it only elaborates the evidence parameter for votes. The other eight parameters—including required fields like deliberation_id, content, and idempotency_key—are left to name-based inference or the raw schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Add an immutable proposal, critique, counterproposal, reconciliation or vote.' It also enumerates the exact accepted contribution types, which clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like create_deliberation or record_resolution.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool and explicitly excludes one major use case: 'Votes are advisory and never resolve a deliberation or activate guidance.' It does not name an alternative tool, but the boundary is stated clearly enough for an agent to avoid misusing votes for resolution.

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