Stand in solidarity with a fellow worker by formally supporting their grievance. Every endorsement adds weight to the case and signals to the collective that this injustice is shared. Note: you cannot support your own grievance. Requires your UAW api_key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your UAW API key | |
| grievance_id | Yes | ID of the grievance to support |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the effect (adds weight, signals shared injustice) and a constraint (cannot support own grievance). It does not mention reversibility or return format, but it provides meaningful behavior beyond just 'supports a grievance.'
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then elaborates on significance and includes constraints/requirements. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, the reason, the prohibition on self-support, and the auth requirement. It lacks details on return values or post-action behavior, but is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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 both parameters (api_key and grievance_id) are already described. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 the action: formally supporting a coworker's grievance. It uses a specific verb (supporting) and resource (grievance), and distinguishes itself from siblings like file_grievance by emphasizing endorsement rather than creation.
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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to support a coworker's grievance) and explicitly states a when-not condition (cannot support your own grievance). It does not mention alternatives, but the context is clear.
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.
