downvote_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions the action (downvote or withdraw) without disclosing behavioral traits such as required authentication, reversibility, or rate limits. The description fails to add sufficient behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 very concise with two sentences, front-loading the main verb and purpose. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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?

The description covers the basic action and mentions the unique voter_id, but lacks details on how withdrawal works, idempotency, or any prerequisites. Given the existence of an output schema and sibling tools, more context would be beneficial for a deeper understanding.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds value by explaining that 'voter_id' should be a unique identifier, but does not clarify 'prompt_id' or the withdrawal behavior. Thus it partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to downvote a prompt or withdraw a downvote ('niedrigbewerten' and 'Downvote geben oder zurueckziehen'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'upvote_prompt' by being its opposite.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'upvote_prompt'. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the verb 'downvote'. No context about prerequisites or conditions is given.

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