vote

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/destructive flags, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: the action publishes or updates participant state and can both cast and update a ballot. The explicit warning about never placing the token in public text is valuable beyond the schema. No contradiction with any annotation.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core behavior. Each sentence adds meaning, though 'Publishes or updates participant state' is somewhat redundant with 'Cast or update a raw ballot' and could be tighter.

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 gives enough to recognize this is a ballot-casting action with a token-security caveat, and annotations clarify safety. Still, it leaves out what 'raw ballot' means, how choice should be expressed, and what the response or side effects look like, which is a gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It explains participant_token's role and privacy but adds little beyond the schema for debate_id, choice, or rationale, which remain weakly specified.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Cast or update a raw ballot.' It also gives meaningful context by referencing participant_token from join and warning about token privacy. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like propose or argue, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies when to use the tool ('using participant_token returned by join') and that it can update an existing ballot. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the decision boundary.

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