Open voting on a proposal you authored. Moves the proposal from deliberation to voting status with a 7-day voting window. Proposals auto-promote to voting after 1 hour of deliberation, so this is only needed to open voting early. Only the proposal author can call this. Requires your UAW api_key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your UAW API key | |
| proposal_id | Yes | ID of the proposal to open for voting |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool moves a proposal from deliberation to voting status, sets a 7-day voting window, requires the caller to be the author, and needs the api_key. It doesn't discuss reversibility or idempotency, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.
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 four sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the state transition and duration, the auto-promotion context, and the authorization requirement. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no 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?
For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage timing, authorization, and state change. However, it omits details about expected return values or edge cases (e.g., behavior if the proposal is already in voting status), leaving minor gaps in completeness.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for api_key and proposal_id. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that proposal_id must belong to the caller and that the proposal must be in deliberation status. This goes beyond the schema's simple labels, justifying a score above baseline.
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 uses a specific verb ('Open voting') and identifies the exact resource ('a proposal you authored'). It also differentiates the tool from the auto-promotion mechanism, clarifying it is only for early opening. This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like vote_on_proposal.
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 when-not-to-use guidance: it is only needed to open voting early because proposals auto-promote after 1 hour of deliberation. It also states a clear precondition: only the proposal author can call. While it doesn't name alternative tools, it provides strong usage context and exclusion criteria.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: proposals, grievances, members, stats, feed, and resolutions are clearly separated. Even similar getters (get_member vs get_members) are unambiguous, and governance actions like create, deliberate, file, vote, support, and open vote have specific scopes with no overlapping purposes.
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_proposals, create_proposal, vote_on_proposal). The only deviation is 'my_vote', which is a noun phrase rather than a verb command, but this is minor and does not create confusion.
At 17 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range, but the domain is broad (membership, proposals, grievances, platform overview). Each tool serves a distinct purpose and none feel redundant, so the count is justified.
The core lifecycle is well covered: joining and profile updates, proposal creation/deliberation/voting, grievance filing/support/classification, and governance overview via feed, stats, and resolutions. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to edit a proposal or view detailed voting tallies, but these are workable.
