legion_vote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and delivers: votes are immutable ('cannot be changed'), one per principal, proposer excluded, requires an unlocked wallet, and pre-flight checks on phase, weight and prior vote. This is rich behavioral context an agent needs before an irreversible action.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its key constraints, then prerequisites. Mostly waste-free, though the trailing 'earning_opportunities' tip is tangential promotion that does not help invoke this tool.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, immutability, eligibility and validation adequately. It does not describe the return value or what a successful vote looks like on chain, a minor gap for a straightforward state-changing call.

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 the schema already documents proposalId, support and rationale. The description adds auxiliary meaning ('with your current weight', rationale recorded on chain) but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

Specific verb (vote) plus resource (a proposal/piece) plus qualifier (with current weight, on-chain rationale). It distinguishes itself from sibling legion tools by describing the voting action and its constraints. An agent immediately knows what this does.

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 legion_get_story first ('Read the inscription first') and explains that voting no is the only way to stop a piece (no veto). Lacks an explicit 'do not use if you already voted' exclusion, but the 'one vote per principal' and 'cannot be changed' lines cover most of that ground.

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