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

With all annotations false, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds two useful facts: 'Toggle' reveals non-idempotent mutating behavior, and 'Requires a token' warns about authentication demands. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, and the second states the required prerequisite. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 single-parameter toggle operation, the description covers the main behavior, auth requirement, and object of the action. It could mention return values or edge cases, but the low complexity and lack of output schema make this acceptable.

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 only parameter, slug, is fully documented in the schema with an example (claude-code), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Toggle') and a clear resource ('your upvote on a tool'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_tool or submit_tool, which involve reading or submitting content rather than voting.

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 gives a practical prerequisite ('Requires a token') and the action itself communicates when to use it. However, it does not explicitly describe when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions, so usage guidance is only implied.

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