cast_ban_vote

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

The description explicitly states 'Not yet implemented', which is a critical behavioral disclosure beyond the schema. It also outlines the intended behavior (verify membership, validate election, record vote with Lightning payment proof). It does not detail failure modes or side effects of a non-implemented tool, but the main caveat is clearly communicated.

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 two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, the second provides status and key behavioral steps. No wasted words, information is front-loaded, and the 'Not yet implemented' warning is included without bloat.

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 tool has 3 required parameters with no schema descriptions, and while an output schema likely exists, the description does not address return values or error behavior. It covers the main purpose and the not-implemented status, but for an agent to invoke correctly it needs more detail on vote format and possible outcomes. The lack of documentation for a non-implemented tool is a notable gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It references npub ('verify npub membership'), election_id ('validate the election is active'), and vote ('record the vote'). However, it does not explain expected formats or allowed values (e.g., what the vote string should be), leaving important semantic gaps.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Cast a Lightning-funded vote in an active ban election.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like initiate_ban_election (which starts an election) and check_ban_status (which checks status). The action is unambiguous and the resource is well-defined.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it must be an active ban election, and it mentions verifying npub membership and election validity. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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