Vote (governance)

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

Discloses a critical behavioral trait beyond annotations: despite appearing write-oriented, the tool is stubbed and returns a 'governance unavailable' error without recording a vote. This adds important context beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints.

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 with no fluff. The primary action is stated first, and the critical unavailable-error behavior is front-loaded in the second sentence before any unnecessary detail.

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 tool with full schema coverage, the description fully covers invocation, parameter semantics, and the actual behavioral outcome. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly discloses the error response, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with both proposalId and approve documented. The description restates the approve true/false semantics and ties the action to proposalId, but adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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: cast a vote on an open protocol governance proposal by proposalId. It clearly differentiates the voting action from the sibling propose tool and explains the approve semantics.

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?

Clearly indicates that casting a vote is the intended action and that governance is not enabled, so calling the tool will return an error rather than succeed. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose and current non-functional status make appropriate usage unambiguous.

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