endorse_interest

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

The description mentions it is a vote, implying a state change, but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., whether it is idempotent, reversible, or requires authentication beyond the token). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but omits these details.

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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences. It avoids unnecessary details and is well-structured, front-loading the core action.

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, the description provides enough context: what it does, the constraint, and the input source (implied by interest_id from list_emerging_interests). It lacks edge-case handling but is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema fully describes both parameters (token and interest_id) with clear explanations. The description text adds no additional meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies for high schema coverage.

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 (endorse), the object (emerging interest theme), and the purpose (vote to become an active interest). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling actions like unendorse_interest.

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 a specific constraint (one endorsement per household per theme) that guides usage, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like unendorse_interest or list_emerging_interests. The condition implies when to use it, but not explicitly.

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