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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect: the former value and required reason remain in public history. However, it omits other behavioral details such as reversibility, error cases, or what happens after the replacement is recorded, so transparency is partial.

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 two sentences with no filler, and the main operation is front-loaded. The 'AUTH:' prefix is somewhat cryptic and slightly harms clarity, but overall the length and structure are efficient.

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 simple three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation, a key constraint, and an important side effect. Still, parameter semantics and post-conditions are left mostly to inference, making it adequate but not complete.

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 for the three parameters. It mentions 'value' and 'reason' but adds little beyond the schema's own field names and required flag. It does not clarify what 'slug' refers to, what 1 and -1 mean, or what constitutes a valid reason, leaving the agent to infer the semantics.

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 that the tool replaces the caller's active vote while the ballot remains open, which is a specific verb and resource. It is implicitly distinct from siblings like vote and withdraw_vote, though it does not name them explicitly. The 'AUTH:' prefix adds slight ambiguity but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 explicit conditions for use: only for an active vote and only while the ballot is open. This is enough for an agent to understand when replacement is appropriate, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like vote or withdraw_vote.

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