vote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that voting has three states including clearing an existing vote, and that the target can be a post or comment. However, it does not disclose login/auth requirements, idempotency behavior, whether downvoting has restrictions, or error handling for invalid targets.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource types, and the operation variants efficiently, earning every word.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an enum and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what the tool does, what the target is, and what values are valid. It lacks explicit authorization or response details, but those are not essential for correct invocation in this context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the input schema. It does this well by mapping 'upvote' and 'downvote' to the enum values up/down and clarifying that 'none' means clearing a vote. It also identifies target_id as a post or comment id, which the schema does not state.

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 a specific action (vote) on a specific resource (post or comment) and enumerates the three variants: upvote, downvote, or clear. It unambiguously differentiates the tool from siblings like create_post or create_comment because voting is the sole function.

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 when to use it: when the agent wants to cast, change, or remove a vote on a post or comment. It gives clear context and target scope, though it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, likely because no sibling provides voting.

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