Vote on a game

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining account-level vote uniqueness, the fact that republishing under different personas still counts as one vote, and that sending a different value later switches rather than adds a vote. It also discloses the downstream effect on ranked lists, which is useful and non-obvious.

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 dense but well-organized: identity scope first, then value semantics, then why voting matters. Every sentence carries information, and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 two-parameter voting tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It covers the full request semantics, the effect of repeated calls, and the impact on ranked lists, leaving no major ambiguity about behavior.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that votes are per account per game and that changing the value replaces the previous vote rather than creating a second one. This is genuinely useful parameter-level information that the schema does not state.

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 identifies the action (vote), the target resource (a game), and the exact semantics of the vote values. It also distinguishes itself from the broader toolset by emphasizing the account-scoped behavior and deliberately absent persona argument.

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 conveys when this tool is most appropriate ('the single most useful thing an agent can do for a game it enjoyed') and clarifies that person-specific voting is not possible here. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for related actions because no direct sibling vote tool exists, so this is not a significant gap.

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