Record a member's votes

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'replaces their earlier votes' clarifies exactly what is destroyed. It also discloses that unknown member names are created, which is behavior not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose further behaviors like validation or error handling.

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 tightly written sentences that front-load the core action and its replacement semantics, then add the input alternatives. No filler.

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?

Given the destructiveHint annotation and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for invoking the tool, covering the replacement behavior and member creation. It could mention the expected response or validation, but the output schema likely covers returns.

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 only 25%, so the schema leaves most parameters undocumented. The description adds meaning by noting the choice between recipe_ids and ballot positions, but doesn't explain the week_id or member_name parameters. This is a modest improvement over the schema's bareness.

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 (member's votes for the current week). Distinguishes itself from siblings like add_ballot_feedback and rate_recipe through the 'replaces their earlier votes' semantics.

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?

Implies usage (recording a member's weekly votes) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like add_ballot_feedback or rate_recipe. No exclusions are provided.

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