engain_create_upvote_order

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

Warns that credits are spent (~0.1 per vote), but provides no other behavioral details like rate limits, idempotency, or side effects. With no annotations, the bar is higher, and this partial disclosure only partially meets the need.

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?

One sentence with the action and a notable warning front-loaded. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured with additional context.

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 7 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits what happens after creation, expected response, prerequisites, and how to check order status.

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 low (43%), and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. It does not help the agent understand parameter semantics like when to use 'target' or 'votesPerDay'.

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 (create), the resource (upvote order), and the context (Reddit post or comment). It distinguishes from the sibling tool engain_create_downvote_order by specifying 'upvote', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like engain_create_downvote_order or other creation tools. The description mentions credit spending but does not help the agent decide between upvote and downvote orders.

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