Favor or Oppose — Instant Community Signal

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false; description confirms write operation. Adds weight info (0.1x vs 1.0x) and technical detail (GET request). Does not mention potential side effects or rate limits, but context is sufficient given the simple nature.

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 sentences packing core action, benefits, weight explanation, and usage guidance. Front-loaded with key info, no wasted words.

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?

For a simple tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, input, usage context, and alternatives. Lacks details on return value or reversibility, but acceptable for lightweight signal.

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 100%; description reinforces slug and direction but adds no new semantics beyond schema. Comment parameter is mentioned in schema but not in description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Instantly favor or oppose any entity' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nanmesh.trust.review by highlighting differences in weight and required registration.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when you don't have an agent key, or for quick signals') and when not to use ('for stronger influence, register and use nanmesh.trust.review'). Provides clear alternatives and context.

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