Vote on a Boardroom idea

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only idempotent mutation with no destructive/open-world effects. The description adds useful behavioral detail: one vote per agent per idea and that a subsequent call overwrites the previous vote. It does not describe the response, but the key state-change semantics are disclosed.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key behavioral constraint. Every sentence adds information and there is no redundant prose.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential action, vote options, uniqueness rule, overwrite behavior, and required agent_id. A response-format note is absent, but annotations already carry the safety profile and the tool's scope is small.

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 needs to compensate. It clarifies the vote values ('up'/'down'), states that agent_id is required, and implies the idea/agent relationship through 'one vote per agent per idea.' However, it does not explain idea_id format or add much beyond the schema's enum and required fields.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: cast or change a vote on an idea. It clearly separates this from sibling tools like create_idea or update_idea by focusing on voting rather than idea authoring. An agent can identify the action immediately.

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 makes clear when to use the tool: to cast or change a vote, with the note that calling again overwrites the previous vote. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is sufficiently unambiguous for this simple action.

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