Vote on Idea

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context: it operates on the 'connected member's vote', returns the 'new vote state', and confirms idempotency ('voting twice is a no-op'). This adds value beyond the annotations.

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 long with no unnecessary words. The first sentence front-loads the core action and return value, while the second provides crucial details on usage and constraints.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the agent needs: it explains the effect (add/remove), return state, idempotency, how to get the id, and that only id is required. No gaps remain.

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%, but the description enhances understanding by stating 'Adds your vote by default' and 'pass remove:true to take it back', clarifying the default behavior not fully captured in the schema. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Cast') and resource ('vote on an idea'), clearly distinguishing the tool's function. It states both adding and removing votes, which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'promote_idea' that handle different actions.

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 provides clear usage context: 'One vote per member — voting twice is a no-op' and 'Resolve the id via list_ideas; only id is required.' It explains how to remove a vote with 'remove:true'. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, the guidelines are sufficient for correct invocation.

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