Add ballot feedback

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that feedback is a member comment optionally tied to one candidate, but says nothing about validation (must member exist?), duplicate handling, or side effects.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded. The use-case examples earn their place, though the parenthetical and the 'do it themselves' remark could be trimmed slightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, as a mutation tool with 4 zero-coverage parameters, the description leaves week_id and recipe_id usage to inference, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the semantics. It only loosely maps: comment, the 'current ballot' (week_id) and 'one candidate' (recipe_id) — but member_name and the id fields are never explained, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 (Record) and resource (a member's comment about the current ballot), plus the optional candidate scope. It doesn't explicitly name distinguishing siblings like add_vote or send_feedback, but the resource is concrete enough to separate it from generic feedback tools.

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 use case is implied by 'relayed from a text message' and 'Members can also do this themselves on their vote page', suggesting the agent records comments on a member's behalf. However, it never states when to use this versus add_vote or send_feedback, nor any prerequisites.

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