Vote for issue

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral constraints: no accountId is accepted, so third-party voting is impossible, and Jira refuses votes on reported or resolved issues. It also notes reversibility, which gives the agent a fuller picture of side effects.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the account limitation, the failure conditions, and the reversal tool. The core purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 vote action, the combination of annotations, fully described schema, and behavioral notes covers what the agent needs: how to execute, safety guards via apply/plan_id, constraints, and reversibility. No output schema is needed to understand the call.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description's note that the endpoint takes no accountId usefully explains the absence of a parameter, but it does not add meaning to the existing parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Casts THIS SERVER'S OWN vote for an issue') and immediately distinguishes it from voting on behalf of another account. It clearly sets this tool apart from sibling tools like jira_remove_vote and jira_add_watcher.

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 is clear that this tool votes only for the server's own account, and explicitly calls out when it cannot be used: on behalf of another account, on reported issues, or on resolved issues. It names jira_remove_vote as the reversal path, though it does not explicitly state 'use this when you want to vote for an issue'.

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