Cast an on-chain Governor vote from the Safe

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds material context beyond that: it is a real on-chain transaction, costs gas, and is irreversible. It does not mention the return/confirmation format, but there is no output schema to defer to.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The irreversible-transaction warning is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows, making the key facts easy to scan.

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 gas-costing, irreversible mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: mechanism, cost/irreversibility, and preconditions. Minor gaps remain (e.g., what skipChecks does behaviorally, expected confirmation behavior), but the schema handles the parameter-level caveats.

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 100%, so each parameter (including reason's gas cost note and skipChecks' fork caveat) is already documented in the schema. The description only alludes to castVoteWithReason, adding no detail beyond the structured fields, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (votes) and resource (Governor) and names the exact mechanism (castVoteWithReason from the Safe). This clearly distinguishes it from the snapshot_vote siblings, which operate off-chain.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to governor_proposal_state first and states the preconditions (proposal Active, Safe has voting power). A clear prerequisite plus the named check tool leaves little to inference.

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