upvote_request_v1_requests__request_id__upvote_put

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It includes auth info but fails to disclose idempotency (PUT may be idempotent), side effects, rate limits, or whether upvoting is additive or toggling. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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 short and to the point, but slightly repetitive ('Upvote Request — Upvote a dataset request'). It front-loades the path and auth, which is good, but could be more concise without losing meaning.

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 is insufficient for a simple write tool. With no output schema and no annotations, it should at least mention whether the operation can fail (e.g., duplicate upvote), what the response looks like, or that a remove_upvote exists. The current text leaves agents guessing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It mentions 'request_id' in the path but does not explain its meaning, format, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. The parameter is obvious from the path, but no additional context is given.

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 action ('Upvote a dataset request to increase its priority') and includes the HTTP method and path. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'approve_request' or 'remove_upvote', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'approve_request', 'reject_request', or 'remove_upvote'. The description does not mention prerequisites, conflicts, or typical scenarios.

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