build_change_council_vote_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key environment requirement and the fact that it 'builds' a transaction (implying construction rather than execution), but it does not explain return format, whether the transaction is signed/unsigned, or any side effects. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 sentence that front-loads the critical requirement flag and immediately states the purpose. There is no wasted wording or repetition of schema details.

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 tool has a simple input schema with three parameters and no nested objects, but no output schema exists. The description covers the core purpose and context, yet it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a serialized transaction) or whether it submits the transaction. Given the absence of an output schema, these details would improve completeness.

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%, with all three parameters (market, new_vote_yes, voter_wallet) already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Build transaction') and identifies the exact resource and action: a council member changing their vote on a boolean market dispute. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_vote_council_transaction (initial vote) and build_change_council_vote_race_transaction (race markets).

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 states a clear prerequisite ('REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1') and specifies the context: changing a vote on a boolean market dispute. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrasing 'change their vote' and 'boolean market' provides sufficient guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings.

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