Add candidates to the ballot

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

Annotations only indicate readOnly=false, destructive=false and openWorld=false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful side effects: positions continue after existing ones, votes are kept, a 15-item cap, and open feedback being marked addressed. This meaningfully exceeds annotation-only information.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, followed by trigger context and a concrete follow-up action. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information.

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 mutating ballot tool, the description covers what happens, when to use it, what side effects occur, a hard limit, and the necessary next step. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required here. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% at the top level, but the description compensates for the main parameter by explaining append behavior, vote preservation, and the 15-max limit. It also clarifies the addresses_feedback parameter's effect ('open feedback is marked addressed'). week_id is not elaborated, but the name and context make its role reasonably inferable.

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 ('Append'), a clear resource ('extra recipes to the current voting ballot'), and key scope details (positions continue, votes kept, 15 max). This clearly distinguishes the operation from close siblings like propose_recipes and set_this_weeks_recipes.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger ('Use in response to ballot_feedback from get_current_week') and a required follow-up ('Follow up with message_group'). It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the primary usage context is well specified.

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