taiga_tasks_upvote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without explaining idempotency, authentication requirements, side effects (e.g., incrementing a vote count), or error conditions. There is also no mention of whether the upvote can be removed or what happens if the user already upvoted.

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 a single, short sentence 'Upvote a task.' It is concise, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. For a simple tool with one parameter, this level of brevity is appropriate and well-structured.

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, a short description might suffice, but it lacks essential context: no return value, no effect description, no prerequisites, and no connection to sibling tools. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least indicate what the response contains or any postconditions. The description is too minimal to be considered complete.

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 input schema already describes the single parameter 'id' as 'Task ID', so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding further.

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 'Upvote a task' clearly states the action (upvote) and the resource (task), making it specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling upvote tools for other entities like epics or user stories, though the resource is clear from the name. It is a clear, minimal purpose statement.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, no mention of prerequisites, and no alternatives or exclusions. It does not explain how upvoting relates to watching, liking, or downvoting, offering no helpful context for tool selection among siblings.

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