knowledge_upvote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that upvoting can lead to graduation at importance >=7 and that graduated insights always surface in behavioral warnings. This goes beyond a simple 'increase importance' but does not address reversibility or side effects.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences. It is front-loaded with the main action and provides key behavioral context without any wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (one required param, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately explains the purpose and outcome. It covers the graduation mechanism but could mention whether the tool returns any confirmation or error messages.

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 100% for the single parameter 'id', and the description only repeats the schema description ('The UUID of the ledger entry to upvote'). No additional information about the parameter is provided, so it adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already gives.

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 clearly states the action ('Upvote a memory entry') and its effect ('increase its importance (graduation)'). It also explains the consequence of reaching importance >=7, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like knowledge_downvote or knowledge_forget.

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 when to use (to increase importance of a memory entry) and mentions the graduation threshold, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools like knowledge_downvote. However, the context is clear enough.

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