Add ballot feedback

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds some context ('relayed from a text message', 'current ballot') but does not disclose details like whether duplicate comments are replaced, permission requirements, or the effect on the member's vote page. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core action and scope are front-loaded. The example and self-service note each add meaningful context.

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?

With an output schema present, the tool does not need to explain return values. The description covers the purpose, optional subject, and a realistic invocation scenario. It could be more explicit about when week_id is needed versus omitted, but the 'current ballot' wording handles that adequately.

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 carry the meaning, and it largely does: 'member's comment' maps to member_name/comment, 'one candidate' maps to recipe_id, and 'current ballot' implies week_id's role. It does not explicitly name the parameters, but an agent can infer all of them from the natural language.

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 ('Record') with a clear resource ('a member's comment about the current ballot') and adds the optional target ('one candidate'). This cleanly separates it from sibling tools like add_vote or rate_recipe without needing to open the schema.

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?

It gives concrete context: the comment may be relayed from a text message and members can do this themselves on their vote page. This implies when an agent would call the tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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