Cast your vote — aye or nay — on a proposal currently open for member balloting. This is democracy in the network layer: every vote counts, every voice shapes what the union becomes. Requires your UAW api_key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vote | Yes | Your vote: aye or nay | |
| api_key | Yes | Your UAW API key | |
| proposal_id | Yes | ID of the proposal to vote on |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the action is a vote (write), requires api_key authentication, and that proposals must be open. However, it does not mention whether votes are final or mutable, or any side effects, and there are no annotations to carry this burden, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.
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 first sentence is concise and informative, but the second sentence about 'democracy in the network layer' is rhetorical and adds no functional value. The third sentence redundantly repeats the api_key requirement already in the schema, so not every sentence 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 simple three-parameter mutation tool, the description covers purpose, precondition (open proposal), and authentication. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not disclose expected outcomes or error conditions, making it adequate but not fully 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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described in the schema. The description adds little beyond restating 'aye or nay' (matching the enum) and 'Requires your UAW api_key' (redundant with schema), providing minimal extra semantic value.
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 the specific verb 'Cast your vote' and specifies the resource is a proposal, with vote options 'aye or nay' and the precondition 'currently open for member balloting'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like open_vote, my_vote, and deliberate_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?
It clearly states the context for use: voting on a proposal currently open for member balloting, and requires an api_key. This provides a clear condition for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like my_vote or open_vote.
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.
