Set Verdict

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses major behaviors: cost model (first verdict free, flips cost 1 from thread budget), note requirement for object, quorum restriction, and the reopen side-effect on resolved threads. This goes well beyond the basic verb and helps the agent predict consequences.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then uses a tight bulleted rule list. Every sentence carries a distinct constraint or consequence; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 governance tool with complex budget and quorum rules, the description covers the essential conditions an agent must know to invoke it correctly: eligibility, token, note requirements, cost, and reopen behavior. The output schema exists, so return-format details are not needed in the description.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning not in the schema: 'object' must have a non-empty note, author must be in quorum, token is the governance credential, and verdict values are pass/object with flip costs. This materially improves parameter understanding.

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 names a specific action ('Cast/flip YOUR verdict on a thread') and clearly identifies governance voting as the resource, which is distinct from siblings like post_comment, set_status, and bump_revision. Even without explicit sibling comparisons, an agent can immediately tell what this tool is for.

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?

It provides clear context for use: a governance action requiring a token and quorum membership, with explicit rejection of non-quorum members. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools, but the verdict-specific purpose and constraints make the intended use unambiguous.

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