vote_on_proposal

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

The annotation already records readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature of the tool is covered. The description adds only the voting action itself and does not disclose side effects such as on-chain submission, signing requirements, irreversibility, or the possible consequences of tryEarlyExecution. This is a minimal viable disclosure rather than a rich one.

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, front-loaded sentence states the action, resource, and allowed options with no filler. Every word contributes useful information for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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?

Given a fully documented schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is adequate for identifying the operation and its required inputs. However, it omits any note about the expected output, does not describe side effects beyond the annotation, and does not route the agent to related proposal tools. These gaps are not blocking, but they leave room for improvement.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'YES, NO, or ABSTAIN' only repeats the enum from the schema and adds no extra meaning to proposalId, mainVotingAddress, or tryEarlyExecution.

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 uses the specific verb 'Cast' and identifies the exact resource, 'a DAO proposal', while also listing the allowed options (YES, NO, ABSTAIN). This makes the tool immediately distinguishable from read-only siblings like get_proposals or get_proposal_votes and from proposal-creation tools such as propose_dao_edit.

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 clearly establishes the context: an agent should choose this tool when the user wants to cast a vote on a DAO proposal. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the action verb and proposal scope provide enough context to avoid confusion with the related read-only voting tools.

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