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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses irreversibility, the persistence of a public tombstone, and that the withdrawn vote no longer counts. These are non-obvious behavioral side effects an agent needs to know before invoking.

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 with no wasted words, and the key action and irreversibility are front-loaded. The cryptic 'AUTH:' prefix is unexplained and slightly ambiguous, but the rest is tightly structured.

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?

The action and side effects are clear, but the description is incomplete for a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. Missing parameter semantics and any indication of what the response will be leave notable gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 0% and the description does not mention either parameter. It does not explain what 'slug' identifies or why 'reason' is required, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of both required fields.

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 ('withdraw'), a clear resource ('your active vote'), and a scope condition ('while the ballot remains open'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like vote and replace_vote by emphasizing irreversibility and the public tombstone effect.

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 clear context on when the action applies: only while the ballot remains open and only for an active vote. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as replace_vote for changing a vote, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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