upvote_item

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It states the action (upvote) but does not mention idempotency, whether multiple votes are allowed, or any side effects beyond the vote itself.

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 concise, using two brief sentences that convey the essential purpose and key parameter details without any extraneous information.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core functionality and valid types. The existence of an output schema compensates for missing return value details. However, it could mention whether the action is reversible or if it requires authentication.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for object_type by listing valid values and notes the default behavior for session_id. However, object_id lacks any additional context or constraints.

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 the tool's purpose as voting for an item (upvote) and lists the valid object types (user_story, task, issue, epic). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'downvote_item' tool.

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 provides some usage guidance by noting that the default session is used if session_id is not provided, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like downvote_item or other voting actions.

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