Vote on a distillate with a weight from -1 to +1 to update its aggregate score. Overwrites your prior vote for that item.
Vote on a distillate, weight ∈ [-1, +1]. One vote per cid; re-voting overwrites your previous vote. Updates aggregate vote_sum/vote_count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| weight | Yes | ||
| distill_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals key behaviors beyond annotations: weight range, per-cid restriction, overwrite semantics, and effect on aggregate fields. This adds substantial value over the minimal annotation hints.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the key action, no redundant information. Every sentence adds necessary detail.
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?
The description covers the essential aspects: action, constraints, side effects. With annotations and output schema present, no further details are needed. It is complete for accurate invocation.
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 description adds meaning to the weight parameter (range) and explains the role of distill_id in the voting logic. However, distill_id is not explicitly described beyond being the identifier, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates.
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 'Vote on a distillate' with a specific resource and verb. It includes weight range, per-cid constraint, and updates to aggregate fields, distinguishing it from siblings like 'distill' or review tools.
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 explains the overwrite behavior and per-cid rule, providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the given details are sufficient for typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.