league_cast_votes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose non-obvious rules: leftover votes are cast as abstain, and 'choice' is required for plain yes/no proposals but must be a listed choice id otherwise. It does not describe error behavior or what a successful submission returns, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the payload shape, then the edge-case rule — a sensible order with no filler. It is dense and slightly run-on in the choice-explanation sentence, but every clause conveys an actual rule.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the payload contract and where to obtain valid ids, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits confirmation/return behavior and failure modes, leaving a modest gap.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema itself is an opaque 'array of object with additionalProperties', so the description fully carries this load by spelling out the per-vote fields (resolution_id, direction with enum values enact/repeal, num_votes, optional choice). This is exactly the compensation required when the schema documents nothing.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Vote on this session's World Congress proposals', which cleanly separates it from the league_propose_enact and league_propose_repeal siblings. It also names the precondition context (in_session, votable proposals from league_status()).

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 tells the agent to consult league_status()'s 'votable' list and states the session must be in_session, which is usable routing context. However, it never states when NOT to use this tool or explicitly contrasts it with the proposal tools, so guidance is clear but not complete.

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