wisdom_vote_on_fragment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates the action, but it does not disclose important behavior: whether casting a vote is idempotent, whether a user can have only one vote per fragment, what 'retract' means for an existing vote, or whether any permissions are required. For a state-changing trust operation, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that leads with the action, names the resource, and lists the vote options. There is no filler or redundant information, and the description is immediately scannable.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only source of behavioral context. While the input schema fully covers parameter syntax, the description omits the effect of voting, whether votes are replaceable, and what the caller should expect in response. Given the trust-related semantics and the existence of related vote/trust tools, this is incomplete for confident invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds no further meaning beyond listing the vote_type enum values, which the schema already provides. This meets the baseline for schema-driven parameter clarity but adds no extra semantic value.

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 states a specific verb ('Cast'), a clear resource ('a trust vote on a fragment'), and enumerates the allowed vote types. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like wisdom_get_fragment_votes (reading votes) and wisdom_trust_agent (trusting an agent), so an agent can tell what this tool does without inspecting the schema.

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 implies the context: you use this when you want to express trust in a fragment by verifying, contesting, or retracting. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as wisdom_get_fragment_votes for inspecting existing votes. The guidance is adequate but relies on inference.

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