Venue Rules

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses defaults for every field, the '*' precedence rule ("a venue's own rules win"), that reset returns the venue to default, and the anti-spam intent behind reward_s. It never states whether omitted parameters are left unchanged versus reverted, and says nothing about permissions or error behavior for an unknown venue.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then usage, then a compact param glossary; there is essentially no filler. It is a dense single block with semicolon-glued definitions, slightly harder to scan than a list, but the length is justified by 11 undocumented parameters.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and both set and show modes are covered. The remaining gap is the partial-update contract (which is critical given zero required parameters) and the absence of any prerequisite/permission note.

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%, yet the description documents all 11 parameters with units, semantics and defaults: max_waiting (1), cooldown_s (600), max_len (120), reward_s (60; 0 = no limit), duplicates (counts a repeat request as a vote), exempt_mods (owner and mods skip limits). This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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 precise verb pair (set and show) plus the resource (a venue's chat command rules) and ties it to chat_commands and the !request/!vote/!love commands, which cleanly separates it from venue_set/venue_list/venue_remove.

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?

"Reach for it when you limit requests per viewer, set a cooldown, or close requests or votes" gives concrete triggering scenarios, and "Call it with only venue= to see the rules" documents the read path. It stops short of naming siblings (venue_set for creating a venue, chat_commands for command behavior) as alternatives.

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