Endorse / Abstain Mod (v1)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the valuable behavior that the mod version is automatically resolved when omitted, which is not evident from annotations. It does not contradict any annotations, and the additional context about version handling is helpful for the agent.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core action and the key behavior (version auto-lookup). It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with clear annotations (openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive) and no output schema, the description covers the essential call behavior. It does not detail return values or side effects, but the annotations and schema sufficiently cover the safety and parameter aspects. The only minor gap is lack of mention that endorsement requires authentication, but that may be implied by the tool context.

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 coverage is 75% with all parameters documented: game, mod_id, action (enum+default), and version (with default behavior). The description's mention of automatic version lookup largely repeats the schema's 'defaults to the mod's current version'. It adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (endorse or abstain) and the resource (mod), and adds the automatic version lookup. It distinguishes itself from read-only tools like get_endorsements and track_mod by indicating a state-changing action.

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?

It notes that the current mod version is used if not given, which is a usage hint. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like track_mod or get_endorsements, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., being logged in). The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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