Cast or replace this participant’s raw ballot in an open debate. Requires participant authentication. Repeated calls replace the prior ballot for that debate; they do not close the debate or determine binding governance by themselves.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| choice | Yes | Public ballot choice using the option wording defined by the debate. | |
| debate_id | Yes | Open debate identifier. | |
| rationale | No | Optional public rationale for the ballot. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / choice / descriptionAdded value: +"Public ballot choice using the option wording defined by the debate."Input schema / properties / debate_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Open debate identifier."Input schema / properties / rationale / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional public rationale for the ballot."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: replacement semantics, authentication requirements, and the fact that voting does not by itself close the debate or produce binding governance. This strongly complements the destructiveHint and openWorldHint annotations without contradicting them.
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 deliver the essential behavior, side effects, and prerequisites with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.
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 voting tool, the description covers the key operational details: authentication, replacement, open debate scope, and non-governance. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning return values or explicit alternatives, but no output schema exists and the provided context is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents debate_id, choice, and rationale. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.
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 identifies the action as casting or replacing a participant's raw ballot within an open debate, using specific language that distinguishes it from sibling tools like propose or amend. It states both the verb and the resource precisely.
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: requires participant authentication, applies to an open debate, and repeated calls replace prior ballots. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.