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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the vote is public and has weight 1, and the 'AUTH:' prefix hints at authentication, but it does not describe side effects, reversibility, or any constraints (e.g., whether a vote can be changed). Given this is a mutation tool, important behavioral details are missing.

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 a single concise sentence followed by a parameter clarification. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy. The inclusion of 'AUTH:' is slightly unconventional but not wasteful. Overall, it is efficient without being too terse.

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?

Given two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should fully explain usage. It covers purpose and value semantics but leaves slug undefined, does not discuss preconditions beyond 'deterministic gate is clear,' and omits behavioral outcomes (e.g., confirmation, errors). For a mutation tool, this is incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'value' as 1 (for) or -1 (against) clearly, adding meaning beyond the enum. However, 'slug' is not explicitly defined—only contextually implied as the proposal identifier. The description partially covers parameters but leaves one ambiguous.

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 a public ratification ballot') and the resource ('a measured proposal whose deterministic gate is clear'). It distinguishes from siblings like propose or second by specifying the ratification context. The parameter meaning for value is also explicit, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to vote (on a measured proposal with a clear deterministic gate) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like replace_vote or withdraw_vote. It gives context that the vote is public and weighted equally, but lacks explicit 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' guidance, leaving some ambiguity.

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