vote_witness

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, signaling a write operation without destructive side effects. The description adds the vote conversion rate (1 frozen TRX = 1 vote), which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether votes are additive or replace existing votes, a key behavioral detail.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and provides the essential explanation of voting power. No wasted words.

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 tool with moderate complexity (array parameter, network option), the description covers the core purpose, prerequisite, and vote semantics. It lacks a note about overriding existing votes or interaction with other vote-related tools, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by explaining the meaning of voteCount (each frozen TRX equals one vote), which is not fully clear from the schema alone.

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 (Vote), the resource (Super Representatives), and the mechanism (TRON Power). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delegate_resource or freeze_balance_v2, which serve different purposes.

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 implies the proper usage context by explaining that TRON Power comes from freezing TRX, which establishes a prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for a simple operation.

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