vote_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'upvote/downvote' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't address permission requirements, rate limits, whether votes are reversible, or what happens when voting on non-existent nodes. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after voting (success indicators, error conditions, or return values), nor does it address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements or voting constraints.

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 100%, providing complete documentation for both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 or downvote') and the target resource ('a knowledge node'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'flag_node' or 'edit_node', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough to infer distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'flag_node' for reporting issues or 'edit_node' for content changes. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might exist.

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