veto_strategy

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 reveals the admin-only restriction and the feedback ratio condition, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the strategy is deleted or archived) or error scenarios. The transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 consists of two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is necessary; no redundant or filler content. It is highly concise 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 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: action, admin-only rule, and the specific condition for use. It lacks mention of return values or error states, but for a tool with this complexity, it is reasonably 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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., no format constraints or examples). Following the guidelines, a baseline of 3 is appropriate because 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 (withdraw a strategy within the veto window) and the target resource (strategy). It includes a specific condition (admin only, negative feedback > positive feedback by 50%), distinguishing it from related tools like propose_strategy or approve_strategy.

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 specifies when the tool is available (negative feedback > positive feedback by 50%) but does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., check_veto_window as a prerequisite). The condition is implied but explicit exclusions or alternatives are missing.

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