Vote on an item

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing downstream consequences: down-votes lower the publisher's reputation, future links from that publisher are stored without spending a model call, and heavily down-voted items drop out of search. It also documents the failure mode ('fails if no item has that id') and the replace-on-revote behavior, which is consistent with idempotentHint=true.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and direction semantics, followed by the vote-count rule, the consequences, and the failure case in descending priority. No sentence is redundant with the name or title.

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?

A 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, fully covered by annotations and a schema that already documents every field — the description supplies exactly the missing layer: side effects, idempotency behavior, and the error condition. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is absent.

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 100%, including an explicit enum of up/down and a documented reason field, so the schema carries the parameter burden and baseline is 3. The description reinforces the vote semantics and adds the replacement behavior, but says nothing about the optional reason parameter or its 300-char guidance.

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and resource (item) and immediately qualifies the two directions with their meaning (up = useful/accurate, down = spam/outdated/wrong/polluted). No sibling tool performs voting, so the action is unambiguously distinct from driftnet_search, driftnet_get, driftnet_save, etc.

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 up/down criteria effectively define when each option applies, and 'one vote per agent per item: voting again replaces your earlier vote' tells the agent this is a re-callable, revisable action rather than a one-shot. It stops short of explicitly naming a workflow ('use after driftnet_get/search') or stating exclusions, so it sits clearly above minimum but not at the full 5.

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