Vote (governance)

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. Description adds that it applies to 'open' proposals, implying constraints on valid proposal states. No further behavioral details (errors, side effects) are provided.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and provide usage guidance. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 covers the basic purpose and parameters, but lacks information about return values or possible error conditions (e.g., if already voted, proposal closed). For a simple mutation with no output schema, it is adequate but not complete.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (proposalId hex, approve boolean). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 verb 'Cast a vote' on a specific resource 'open gSAIHM governance proposal' and specifies the action 'approve or reject'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'propose' and other non-governance tools.

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 to use this tool to approve or reject an open proposal by proposalId. Provides clear context but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use (e.g., if proposal is closed) or contrast with alternatives beyond what sibling names imply.

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