moltbook_vote

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 states the action ('Upvote or downvote') but doesn't explain what this entails—such as whether it requires authentication, affects post visibility or ranking, is reversible, or has rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 waste—it directly states the tool's action and target. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs or effects, and with 0% schema coverage, parameter details are insufficient. This leaves the agent with critical gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'post' and 'direction' implicitly but doesn't clarify what 'post_id' represents (e.g., a unique identifier) or that 'direction' accepts 'up' or 'down' values. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema's property names suggest.

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 resource ('a post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'moltbook_comment' or 'moltbook_post', which might also interact with posts in different ways.

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 versus alternatives like 'moltbook_comment' or 'moltbook_post'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing post) or exclusions (e.g., not for comments or other content types), leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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