agent_corroborate

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers well: it discloses the disabled-by-default gating, the exact env var that enables writing, and that it acts as the local credential-store identity. It stops short of describing post-vote effects on consensus or the return value.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste: purpose first, gating second, identity behavior third. Nothing can be cut without losing required 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?

For a write/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the critical operational facts (gating flag, signing identity). The remaining gap is the effect of a vote on attestation state, which is not explained.

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 vote, signature, attestation_id, and comment are all self-documented. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is complete.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Vote to corroborate or refute an attestation.' Clear enough to separate from siblings like agent_create_attestation or agent_get_consensus, but it never names an alternative explicitly, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

Provides an explicit when-not condition: 'Off by default: refused unless the human owner set VOIDLY_MCP_RELAY_ALLOW_OPEN_WRITES=1.' That is a concrete precondition an agent can check, though no alternative tool is offered for the unsupported case.

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