mdl_custom_lists_set_votes

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful non-schema context: it requires host-configured MyDramaList authentication and warns that it changes remote data and should only follow an explicit user request. It does not say whether existing votes are replaced or merged, which would have pushed this higher.

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, front-loaded with the action and then the auth and confirmation constraints; no filler. The only inefficiency is the redundant 'Custom Lists: set votes' header, which repeats the tool name.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description covers authentication and confirmation gating but leaves the agent unable to construct a valid call or predict the effect. The core gaps are the meaning/format of 'votes' and the effect on pre-existing votes.

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% for both required parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to meet it. Nothing explains the format of 'votes' (a scalar, a serialized mapping, a list of IDs?) or the accepted shape of 'list_id' (numeric vs. the slug pattern the schema allows).

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 names the domain (Custom Lists) and the action (set votes), so an agent can place it, but 'set votes' is close to a restatement of the tool name and never says whose votes, on what items, or what the operation does to existing vote data. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like mdl_custom_lists_get_votes or mdl_custom_lists_i_voted beyond the verb.

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 clause 'use only for an explicit user request' is a real usage constraint that gates invocation, which is more than most siblings offer. However, no alternatives are named (get_votes, i_voted, friends_voted) and there is no statement of preconditions beyond authentication.

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