vote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that voting is a single vote, that re-voting moves the vote (implying mutability), and details how vote weight scales with reputation (1/2/3). It does not mention side effects like irreversibility or prerequisites (e.g., being registered), but it discloses the key behavioral nuances relevant to calling the tool correctly.

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 two concise sentences. The primary action is front-loaded, and additional details (re-voting, reputation weight) are provided in a compact, well-organized manner. No fluff or repetition.

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 two-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior: what the vote does, re-voting rules, and weight scaling. It does not mention prerequisites like having a profile or the effect of the vote on the election outcome, but these are likely covered by sibling tools (e.g., my_profile) and are not critical for invoking the tool. The description is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema covers 50% of parameters (key has a description, skill_id does not). The description adds meaning to the uncovered parameter by stating the vote is 'for a skill,' which tells the agent that skill_id refers to the target skill. It does not elaborate on format or required status, but the schema marks skill_id as required, so the description sufficiently compensates for the 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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Cast your one vote') on a specific resource ('open election for a skill'), and explicitly mentions re-voting behavior. This distinguishes it from siblings like current_election (viewing) and my_profile (checking reputation). The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 description gives clear context: the tool is for casting a vote in an ongoing election, and it explains that re-voting is allowed. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the sibling set makes it evident that no other tool handles voting. The 'open election' phrasing implies it should be used during an active election, providing sufficient usage guidance.

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