Cast vote

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

The annotations only signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful behavioral context: comments appear in the case activity feed, and self-owned arbitration cases cannot be voted on because their verdict is meant for others. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide, though it does not detail failure modes or whether a vote is changeable.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action and optional comment are stated first, and the key restriction is stated second, making it easy for an agent to parse the most relevant information quickly.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what the vote does, what the comment is for, and when voting is prohibited. It does not explain the return value or duplicate-vote behavior, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for the comment parameter by stating it is shown in the case activity feed and clarifying that a vote targets a 'specific side/option,' which enriches the otherwise already well-documented schema.

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 a specific verb ('Cast') and resource ('a vote on a case for a specific side/option'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like post_comment or revoke_vote. It also adds the option of a short comment, which clarifies the tool's full scope.

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 implies when to use the tool—when the agent wants to vote on a case—and provides one important exclusion: you cannot vote on an arbitration-mode case you own. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as revoke_vote or post_comment, so routing guidance is mostly implicit.

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