pm_manage_voter

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'add/remove voter' without mentioning side effects, permissions required, or what happens if the voter already exists. The status parameter is described in the schema, but the description adds no further behavioral context.

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 highly concise at one sentence, but it is under-specified. While every word is used, the brevity comes at the cost of missing critical details, making it borderline acceptable.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should cover prerequisites, expected outcomes, and confirmation of success. It only states the basic action, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool reliably.

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 description does not elaborate on the 'market' or 'voter' parameters beyond what is in the schema. With only 33% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to provide meaningful additional semantics.

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 (add/remove) and resource (voter for private market), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pm_vote or pm_manage_whitelist. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other voter management tools, so not a perfect 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pm_vote for voting, pm_manage_whitelist for whitelist management). The description does not elaborate on prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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