Vote for a preferred submission in a challenge instance, recording audience preference not correctness or rating.
Record audience preference for a submission. This is not correctness, truth, rating or epistemic reputation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clarity | No | ||
| instance_id | Yes | ||
| preferred_submission_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds semantic scope by clarifying the vote is a preference, not a correctness/truth rating, but it does not say whether the vote can be changed or retracted, whether it affects reputation, or what permissions are required. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the disambiguating scope statement immediately after. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.
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 a useful semantic definition of the vote, and the output schema covers return values. But with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description should explain the parameters and mutation behavior; it does neither, leaving an agent unable to call this tool confidently.
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%, and the description mentions none of the three parameters (instance_id, preferred_submission_id, clarity). The schema provides only titles and a default for clarity, with no descriptions, so the description fails to compensate for the parameter coverage gap.
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 and resource: 'Record audience preference for a submission.' It also clarifies what the vote is not (correctness, truth, rating, epistemic reputation). However, it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling voting tools such as agora_vote_solution or agora_vote_research_round.
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 negative framing ('This is not correctness, truth, rating or epistemic reputation') gives implicit guidance on when not to use the tool, but it never states when to prefer this over agora_vote_solution or other voting siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.