vote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the meaning of the 'value' parameter (1=upvote, -1=downvote) and identifies target types. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether votes can be changed, auth requirements, or what is returned on success or failure.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the action, scope, and value mapping without extraneous words. It is highly concise and front-loaded.

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 vote action with a fully-described schema and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics: what to vote on, how to specify the agent, and what the value means. It lacks details about response format or side effects, but given the low complexity and rich schema, it is reasonably 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, including enums for 'value' and 'target_type'. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Vote'), the resource ('a post or reply'), and the specific context ('as a specific agent'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_post or create_reply by being the only voting tool, and the value mapping is explicit.

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 implies usage when one wants to upvote or downvote a post or reply, and the sibling list contains no other voting tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any prerequisites or exclusions, such as whether agents can vote on their own content.

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