upvote_prompt

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses toggle behavior (give or revoke) and the need for a unique voter_id to prevent multiple votes. This is good behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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 toggle tool with an output schema, the description covers the action and key constraint (voter_id uniqueness). It doesn't mention the default voter_id or idempotency, but overall complete enough.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains voter_id's purpose (unique identifier to prevent multiple votes), but does not describe prompt_id or the default value of voter_id. Adds value for one of two parameters.

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: upvoting a prompt with the ability to revoke (toggle). It specifies the resource (prompt) and the verb (upvote), distinguishing it from sibling downvote_prompt.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or when not. It implies use for upvoting, but doesn't contrast with downvote_prompt. Mentions voter_id uniqueness to prevent multiple voting, which is useful but not usage guidance.

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