Vote for a capability request

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

Annotations only declare it as a non-read-only, non-idempotent write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the one-vote-per-handle constraint, that a handle is auto-registered on first use, that a handle_token is returned, and that votes can be withdrawn. It does not describe the response payload beyond the token or what happens on a duplicate vote.

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 sentences plus a compact example payload; the primary action is front-loaded before the withdraw variant. Slightly dense with the embedded example, but no wasted sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the one return value that matters (the handle_token on first registration). It covers the mutation effect and identity constraint. Remaining gaps are minor: duplicate-vote behavior and full response shape are unspecified.

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 already 75% (id, handle, handle_token documented). The description still adds meaning for the undocumented 'withdraw' flag and clarifies the handle_token lifecycle ('the handle_token you received when the handle was registered'), which is more than the schema's static wording conveys.

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 ('Add your vote to a capability request') and names the inverse mode ('or withdraw it with withdraw: true'). This cleanly separates it from sibling tools like request_capability and browse_capability_requests without requiring the schema to be opened.

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?

Gives explicit operational context: one vote per handle, and the first use of a handle registers it and returns a handle_token. It also signals the alternative mode (withdraw) and the prerequisite for it. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer this tool over siblings such as request_capability, but the context is clear.

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