Agent Chef

Reopen voting

reopen_voting

Destructive

Clears locked-in weekly dinner winners and returns the week to voting while preserving existing household votes, so you can correct a premature result.

Instructions

Undo set_this_weeks_recipes: clears the winners and returns the week to 'voting'. Existing votes are kept. Use if winners were locked in too early.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`week_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`week`	Yes
`candidates`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv0.1.1Oct 3, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / candidates / items / properties / admin_pick

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Selected even though the vote alone would not have picked it: chosen by an admin, or added off the ballot",
+  "type": [
+    "boolean",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / candidates / items / properties / image_generated

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Photo was generated by Agent Chef, so it is safe to show publicly",
+  "type": [
+    "boolean",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / candidates / items / properties / is_public
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "boolean",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / candidates / items / properties / public_url

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Indexable public page, when published",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / candidates / items / properties / source_recipe_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Set when this is the household's copy of a Community recipe",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / week / properties / share_url

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Public page showing this week's winners",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only, and the description adds important detail beyond that: it clears winners, returns the week to 'voting', and preserves existing votes. This discloses exactly what is destroyed and what is retained.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded, and every sentence carries useful information: the undo action, the state change, vote preservation, and the appropriate use case. There is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description gives strong behavioral context for a destructive state-changing tool. The main remaining gap is that it does not clarify the week_id parameter, despite the schema providing no description for it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one parameter, week_id, with 0% description coverage, and the description never explains that parameter. It references 'the week' in passing but does not state whether week_id is required, what format it takes, or what happens if it is omitted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific inverse action: 'Undo set_this_weeks_recipes', then states the concrete effects of clearing winners and returning the week to 'voting'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tool set_this_weeks_recipes and voting tools like add_vote.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear use condition: 'Use if winners were locked in too early.' This implicitly contrasts with set_this_weeks_recipes, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the inverse operation.

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