build_change_council_vote_race_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool builds a transaction (does not submit it) and requires the BAOZI_LIVE environment variable. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or what the returned transaction looks like, leaving some gaps for a mutation-like 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence with a notable environment prerequisite in brackets. Every word earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded. It is concise without being under-specified.

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?

The description gives the essential purpose and one requirement, but it lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites such as ensuring the council member has already voted. It also does not explain the return value, which could be helpful since there is no output schema. Overall, it is minimally complete but leaves some operational context ambiguous.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only reinforcing that the wallet is a council member and the action is a vote change on a race market. Thus the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Build transaction for council member to change their vote on a race market dispute.' This specifies both the action (build/change vote) and the resource (council vote on race market), and distinguishes it from siblings like build_vote_council_race_transaction (initial vote) and build_change_council_vote_transaction (non-race).

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 clear context: it is specifically for changing a council member's vote on a race market dispute, and it includes a prerequisite ('[REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1]'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the context strongly implies it is for existing votes on race markets only.

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