build_vote_tx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key traits: it returns an 'Unsigned tx' (not an executed vote) and that voting is one-per-milestone and not token-weighted. It omits eligibility/auth prerequisites, what to do with the unsigned payload, and whether a vote is final or changeable.

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?

A single terse line with the operation and key constraints front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves out details that would earn a 5.

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 3-param transaction builder with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the unsigned-tx nature and voting semantics but omits the token param, eligibility requirements, and downstream signing step. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0% with 3 params, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'yes/no' for the support boolean and references the milestone, but the required 'token' parameter is entirely unexplained, leaving real gaps.

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?

States a specific action (build unsigned tx to cast a vote) on a specific resource (a VOTE milestone), and the 'not token-weighted' note carves out a distinct semantic from other vote-related siblings. It doesn't explicitly name competitors like build_finalize_vote_tx, so it's clear but not sibling-differentiating to the top level.

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?

'cast your ONE vote (yes/no) on a VOTE milestone' implies the use case, but it never says when to prefer this over build_finalize_vote_tx or that check_vote_eligibility should be run first. Usage is inferable but no explicit alternatives or prerequisites are given.

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