vote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the vote is 'public' and 'weighted', which is useful, but it does not mention reversibility, idempotency, consequences of voting, or any required permissions.

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 brief and front-loads the core action. It avoids redundancy, though the vague clause 'whose deterministic gate is clear' adds confusion without earning 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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It leaves out what the response will be, whether votes can be changed, and what exactly slug refers to, making it insufficient for confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain value as 1 (for) or -1 (against), adding meaning beyond the bare enum. However, slug is not explained, leaving a key parameter partially undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('cast') and resource ('ratification ballot'), and clarifies the action is voting for or against a proposal. However, the phrase 'measured proposal whose deterministic gate is clear' is vague and does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like second or propose.

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 such as propose or second. There is no mention of prerequisites, eligibility, or circumstances where a different tool should be chosen.

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