aras_vote_activity

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

The description discloses that the tool goes through AML EvaluateActivity and notes that it is disabled in read-only mode, providing some insight into its behavior. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., notifications, irreversible state changes) or what happens after the vote is cast. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short of full transparency.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of four short sentences. It opens with the main purpose and then provides necessary context about the AML command, the prerequisite lookup, and the read-only restriction. There is no redundancy or unnecessary verbosity.

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 gives some context: it mentions the prerequisite use of aras_get_workflow and the read-only restriction. However, it lacks details about return values, error handling, or the outcome of voting (e.g., whether it triggers re-approval or sends notifications). Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is only partially complete for a tool that performs a state-changing action.

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 includes descriptions for 'path' and 'assignmentId', and the tool description indirectly explains that 'activityId' and 'assignmentId' can be obtained from aras_get_workflow. However, the 'commenti' parameter has no description in the schema and is not clarified in the tool description. Since the description adds only a hint about where to find IDs, it only partially enhances parameter understanding.

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 tool's function: it completes a workflow activity by selecting an exit path (e.g., 'Approve', 'Reject'). It also mentions the underlying AML EvaluateActivity command, which reinforces the purpose. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the action is specific enough to distinguish it from read-only tools like aras_get_workflow.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: after using aras_get_workflow to find the activity and assignment IDs. It also states that it is disabled in read-only mode, which indicates when it should not be used. This gives clear context for usage, though it does not mention alternative tools for similar operations.

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