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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses irreversibility, public persistence as a tombstone, and the headcount effect. This is substantial, decision-relevant information beyond the schema.

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?

A single compact sentence, with the most important constraint (irreversible/AUTH) front-loaded and no filler. Each clause adds distinct 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is near-complete: it states the operation, key effects, and reason visibility. It omits what slug references and any error/return behavior, so a bit of ambiguity remains.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description adds only the tombstone behavior for reason; it never explains slug or the semantics/format of reason beyond implying public retention. The burden falls on the description, and it does not meet it.

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 an explicit action ('withdraw'), a specific resource ('your second'), and key distinguishing traits (irreversible, tombstone, headcount). This separates it from siblings like second, replace_vote, or withdraw_vote without needing the schema.

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 conveys when the tool is relevant—withdrawing a second—but it never names conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent must infer that second is the counterpart and withdraw_vote is a different operation, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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