Vote on a Boardroom idea

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

Discloses the key behavioral trait that votes are overwritable and per-agent-per-idea uniqueness. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it adequately covers the core behavior but could mention response or rate limits.

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 sentences with front-loaded action, no wasted words. All sentences earn their place, covering the main action, behavior, and required parameter.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation or error). For a simple vote action, this is a minor gap; otherwise, the description covers usage and constraints well.

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 has three parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only restates the enum for vote and notes agent_id is required, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema. More detail on each parameter's role or constraints would be needed to compensate.

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?

Clearly states the action ('cast or change your vote'), the resource ('idea'), and the allowed values ('up' or 'down'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_idea or list_ideas by focusing specifically on voting behavior.

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?

Explicitly notes that calling again overwrites the previous vote, which guides when to use it and the idempotency behavior. Lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear given sibling tool names.

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