covidence_log_vote

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Record a vote' and 'Used to track progress,' but it does not disclose whether votes are appended, overwritten, whether duplicate votes are allowed, or what happens on error. This leaves an agent uncertain about repeated calls or response behavior.

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 short sentences, the first front-loads the action and the second gives purpose. There is no wasted wording or redundant restatement of the name.

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 simple two-parameter logging tool, the description covers what it does and when to use it. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, a bit more detail about duplicate handling or return value would make it fully complete, but the essential information for invocation is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond 'vote' and 'session log,' so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Record a vote in the session log.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like covidence_screen and covidence_get_session_log. The additional phrase 'after Claude has cast it in Chrome' disambiguates the intended workflow context.

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 gives a clear condition for use: 'after Claude has cast it in Chrome.' This tells the agent when in the workflow the tool should be invoked. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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