moltbook_upvote_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that upvoting is toggleable (via 'force'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or what happens if the post doesn't exist, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. However, the 'Returns' section is slightly vague ('Vote result with author info and follow status'), and the purpose statement could be more front-loaded with context.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and return intent but lacks details on error handling, authentication, or the exact structure of the vote result. Given the complexity, it should provide more behavioral context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'post_id' as 'The post UUID to upvote' and 'force' as 'Set True to intentionally toggle off a previous upvote'. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on UUID format or default behavior.

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 verb ('upvote') and resource ('a post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'moltbook_upvote_comment' (which upvotes comments instead of posts), which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'moltbook_downvote_post' or 'moltbook_upvote_comment'. It mentions the 'force' parameter's effect but doesn't explain broader usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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