atstake_legion_vote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses permanence and publicity of the rationale, one-vote-per-address, no self-voting, block-delayed voting window, and required preconditions (minimum share balance, unlocked wallet). It also warns there is no veto path, which is a non-obvious behavioral constraint.

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 core action and the no-veto rule are front-loaded and every paragraph carries substantive information. The closing tip promoting `earning_opportunities` is tangential to voting and is the one piece that doesn't directly earn 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?

Covers prerequisites, timing, vote semantics, and rationale expectations for a 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema. The remaining gap is the unspecified `side`/`support` interaction and no indication of what the call returns once submitted.

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 all four parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds the notion of vote weighting by share balance, but it never clarifies the relationship between the `side` enum (yes/no/bonded/idle — which legion) and `support` (boolean up/down), which is the most ambiguity-prone part of the schema.

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 (vote), resource (proposal), and the two components of the vote (share balance as weight, written rationale). It separates itself cleanly from siblings like atstake_legion_propose and atstake_legion_conclude by describing the voting act itself.

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 frames when to vote no: "There is no veto here: voting no while the window is open is the only way to stop a proposal," plus concrete criteria (unsupported link, standing truth from point-in-time evidence). Also states eligibility constraints (proposer cannot self-vote, one vote per address, window opens two blocks after propose), which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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