Vote (governance)

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

Annotations already mark readOnly=false and idempotent=false, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: the call is forwarded to the operator endpoint, failures occur when governance is disabled, and vote weight is based on snapshot-epoch balance rather than current balance. This materially helps an agent predict outcomes.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and parameter semantics, with caveats following. There is no filler, repetition of annotation data, or 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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, failure mode, and the voting-weight caveat, which is substantial for a two-parameter tool. It does not describe the success or failure return payload, but with no output schema this is a minor gap given the behavioral caveats are covered.

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 input schema fully documents both required parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the approve polarity and references proposalId but adds no new parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond the 'open proposal' context.

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 names a specific action ('Cast a vote'), the resource (an open protocol governance proposal), and identifies the proposal by proposalId. It also clarifies the approve boolean's polarity, so an agent can distinguish this from proposal-creation sibling saihm_governance_propose.

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 invocation context: the proposal must be open, the approve flag expresses support or rejection, and governance may be disabled at the operator endpoint so an error is expected unless enabled. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to vote, but the context is sufficient for correct use.

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