cast_vote

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the support parameter's boolean semantics and the ability to stack votes on a previously voted proposal, which goes beyond the schema.

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 three sentences with no filler. Each sentence serves a purpose: prerequisite, parameter explanation, and notable capability. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The description covers prerequisites and parameter behavior but omits details about the return format, error scenarios (e.g., insufficient votes, invalid proposal), and any side effects. For a mutation tool with destructiveHint=true and no output schema, this leaves uncertainty for the agent.

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% and descriptions already exist. The description adds nuance by clarifying that the 'support' true/false corresponds to FOR/AGAINST (redundant but helpful) and that 'votes' can be used to add to an existing vote on the same proposal, which is not in the schema.

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 ('Cast a vote') and resource ('governance proposal'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like deposit_jst_for_votes or withdraw_votes by focusing on the actual voting action, including semantics for support and the ability to add votes.

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 a clear prerequisite ('must have available votes, deposit JST first if needed') and notes that repeated use is allowed for adding more votes. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like checking vote status or withdrawing votes.

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