Record a member's votes

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

The description discloses that the tool 'replaces their earlier votes' and that unknown member names are created, which is useful behavioral context. However, this directly contradicts the annotation destructiveHint=false, since replacing existing votes is a destructive/overwriting action. The contradiction forces a score of 1.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately adds the replacement side effect, then explains accepted input formats and member creation. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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, return values need not be explained. The description covers the main behavior, input alternatives, and member creation. But the contradiction with annotations and the lack of clarity on array exclusivity leave the agent with less confidence than the tool's complexity warrants.

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 low (25%), so the description must compensate. It does clarify that recipe_ids and positions are alternative input methods, and that unknown member names are auto-created. However, it remains ambiguous whether both arrays can be provided together and what constraint exists on choosing one, leaving some parameter semantics unresolved.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Record one member's votes for the current week.' It also clarifies it replaces earlier votes, which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_past_votes or other vote-related tools. The scope is clearly narrowed to a single member and a specific week.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'current week' and 'replaces their earlier votes,' but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. No sibling alternatives are mentioned, so an agent must infer from the broader tool list.

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