Reopen voting

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

Beyond the broad annotations, it discloses exactly what changes ('clears the winners'), what is preserved ('Existing votes are kept'), and the resulting state ('voting'). This lets the agent predict side effects without guessing.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core action and scope are front-loaded, and the usage condition is a standalone final sentence.

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 simple one-parameter mutation with existing output schema and safety annotations, it is nearly complete. The only gap is that week_id is never explicitly named, though the reference to 'the week' makes the intended parameter clear.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain week_id. However, the single parameter's role is inferable from 'the week' in the description, so it adds partial semantic context even though it doesn't pin down format or whether the identifier is required.

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 ('Undo set_this_weeks_recipes') and resource ('week'), states the state transition ('clears the winners and returns the week to 'voting''), and names the sibling it reverses, so an agent can distinguish it from related tooling.

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 an explicit use condition: 'Use if winners were locked in too early.' It also identifies the operation it undoes, which effectively distinguishes it from set_this_weeks_recipes and the adjacent voting/scheduling tools.

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