cast_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 fails to mention that voting is a write operation, whether it is reversible, any permission requirements, or the presence of a verification email (hinted by hil_expiry_seconds). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool, leaving the agent unaware of side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes useful guidance, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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, but includes a non-obvious hil_expiry_seconds parameter hinting at email verification. The description does not explain this verification flow, possible outcomes, error scenarios, or what happens after voting. This leaves the description incomplete for a mutation tool of moderate complexity.

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 schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds some emphasis on vote format for yes/no and single choice, but omits ranked voting and hil_expiry_seconds entirely. This does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 tool's action: 'Cast a vote on a proposal.' This specific verb+resource framing distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_proposal, finalize_proposal, or list_proposals, making the purpose immediately obvious.

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 usage by defining the tool as the voting action, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It does give format guidance for yes/no and single-choice votes, which is helpful but not full tool-selection guidance.

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