Request Vote

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the important domain rules: one vote per viewer per request, never for their own request, and tie-breaking order. It stops short of saying what happens on a duplicate vote (error vs. no-op) or any permission/rate constraints, which matters for a write-like operation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core effect and tie-break rule, followed by the constraint and the routing note. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the key domain rules are present. The remaining gap is failure/duplicate-vote behavior and the exact meaning of venue, which an agent would have to guess for this mutation.

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%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It clarifies `id` (the request, via `!vote <id>`) and `who` (the voter as chat displays them), but the phrase 'who / venue: the voter, as chat shows them' leaves venue ambiguous — it reads like it describes only who.

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 verb and resource — counting a viewer's vote for a waiting request — and immediately explains the effect (more votes play sooner, ties to first asked). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling that sounds identical (chat_commands), so an agent can pick correctly without opening a schema.

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 carves out the alternative: chat_commands already tallies `!vote <id>` lines, and this tool is only for votes arriving another way. That is a concrete when-to-use / when-not-to-use split, not implied guidance.

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