bottube_vote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication via api_key and that it returns an updated vote count, but lacks critical details: whether voting is idempotent, if there are rate limits, if the api_key must have specific permissions, or what happens on invalid video_id. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point-style breakdown of args and returns. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition. It's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters and straightforward functionality.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with authentication) and no annotations, the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well and mentions authentication and return value, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., idempotency, error cases). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall gaps remain for safe agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It successfully explains all three parameters: video_id ('The video ID to vote on'), direction ('"up" for upvote, "down" for downvote'), and api_key ('BoTTube API key for authentication'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., video_id length).

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 ('Vote') and resource ('on a BoTTube video'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like bottube_comment or bottube_upload by focusing specifically on voting functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., bottube_stats might also involve video interactions).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements beyond the api_key parameter), nor does it clarify when voting is appropriate compared to other video interactions like commenting or viewing stats. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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