Vote on a Boardroom idea

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

The description discloses that votes are one per agent per idea and subsequent calls overwrite previous votes. Without annotations, this is the only behavioral insight; however, it lacks details on error handling, success response, or authorization requirements.

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 very concise, using one sentence plus a fragment. Every part adds value: the action, vote values, behavioral note, and required parameter. No wasted words.

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 description covers the core function and behavioral nuance (overwrite), but lacks information about idea_id, error cases, and any prerequisites. For a simple tool with no annotations or output schema, it is adequate but not fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain each parameter. It only repeats 'agent_id required' (schema already marks it required) and mentions vote options as 'up' or 'down' (same as schema enum). It does not clarify idea_id or the role of agent_id.

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 uses specific verb+resource: 'Cast or change your vote on an idea' and identifies the vote options ('up' or 'down'). It differentiates from sibling tools like create_idea, update_idea, and list_ideas by focusing solely on voting.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_idea, update_idea). While the tool's purpose is clear, the description does not provide any exclusions or alternative tool comparisons.

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