Cast vote

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it reveals that votes are mutable (not idempotent), that the comment is stored and visible in the activity feed, and enumerates all possible error codes and their meanings. It also discloses the return structure ({vote_id, trial_id, side_id, comment_id}), which is not available elsewhere. This is high transparency for a write operation.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core action, then adding comment behavior, vote change semantics, error codes, and return format. Every sentence serves a purpose—no filler. While long, it is as concise as possible given the amount of essential operational detail it must convey.

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 non-trivial mutation tool with 3 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers prerequisites, idempotency behavior, all error scenarios, and the exact return fields. An agent has everything needed to decide when and how to call this tool correctly.

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 already covers all parameters 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining that sideId comes from the sides[] array of tribeunal_get_case, and that the comment is optional and can be marked as evidence. These are contextual details beyond the schema's descriptions, so an extra point is justified.

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 action ('Cast your vote on a case for a side'), identifies the resource (case and side UUIDs), and references the source tool (tribeunal_get_case). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning tribeunal_revoke_vote for removal and tribeunal_join_jury for getting a seat, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit usage rules: one vote per case, voting again with a different side changes the vote, and tribeunal_revoke_vote removes it. It also lists refusal conditions (400 voting_closed, 400 not_invited, etc.) that tell the agent when NOT to call this tool, and mentions the prerequisite of joining the jury first. This is comprehensive guidance beyond just a simple instruction.

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