Vote on Idea

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it specifies the default action (adds vote), the remove:true behavior, idempotency (voting twice is a no-op), and that it returns the new vote state. This aligns with and enriches the idempotentHint true annotation.

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 main action, then covers default behavior, idempotency, and id resolution in a compact, well-structured manner. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description states the return value ('return the new vote state'), explains the side effects (add/remove), and handles idempotency and id resolution. This is complete and sufficient for a simple vote tool given the annotations and schema.

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?

Both parameters are already fully described in the schema (id from list_ideas, remove default false). The description adds 'only id is required', which repeats the schema's required field, and doesn't introduce new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate for 100% schema coverage.

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' (or 'remove') on the resource 'vote on an idea' and clearly states the action and result. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_idea or promote_idea by focusing specifically on voting behavior and the ability to add/remove a vote.

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 clear usage context: it is used to cast or remove a vote, mentions the default behavior (adds vote), and instructs to resolve the id via list_ideas. It also notes 'only id is required'. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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