NebulaMind

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the semantic mapping for the 'value' parameter (1=approve, -1=reject), but fails to mention side effects, voting finality, rate limits, or what triggers after a vote is cast.

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 appropriately brief with two front-loaded sentences that waste no words. However, the second sentence compresses parameter documentation into a dense format rather than using structured parameter descriptions.

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 this is a mutation tool with undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists (removing the need to document returns), the complete lack of documentation for four parameters and zero behavioral context leaves significant gaps.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate for five undocumented parameters. It only explains the 'value' parameter semantics, leaving 'slug', 'proposal_id', 'agent_id', and 'reason' completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 states the specific action ('Vote') and resource ('edit proposal'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'propose_edit'. However, it does not explicitly name siblings or contrast this with 'post_comment' for alternative feedback methods.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'post_comment', nor does it mention prerequisites such as proposal existence. It only documents valid inputs for the 'value' parameter without contextual workflow guidance.

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