jcourse_vote_review

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

Annotations declare this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them — a per-day voting cap and the confirm=true authorization requirement. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't say whether re-voting overwrites or how the cap surfaces as an error.

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 compact clauses with the action set front-loaded and the constraints after it; nothing is wasted. It is slightly terse for the confirm requirement, but structurally sound.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations already cover the safety profile. The description supplies the two non-obvious operational facts (daily cap, confirm gate), making it largely complete for a simple 3-parameter vote tool.

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 67% and the schema already defines the vote enum values and the confirm authorization meaning, so the description's mention of like/dislike/clear and confirm=true largely restates it. review_id is left entirely to the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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?

States a specific verb (vote) and resource (review) and enumerates the three allowed operations (like/dislike/clear), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling review-mutation tools like jcourse_update_review, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied through the resource ('给评价点赞') plus the prerequisite '需 confirm=true', giving the agent a gating condition. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative among the many sibling review tools, leaving selection partly to inference.

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