Withdraw vote

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

Annotations already mark it as a write, idempotent, and non-destructive operation, but the description goes further: it states that other votes are untouched and unreachable, that nothing beyond the vote is deleted, that jira_add_vote can restore it, and that withdrawing a non-existent vote is a no-op. This is strong behavioral context beyond the 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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and scope, the second clarifies side effects and reversibility, and the third documents idempotent no-op behavior. No redundant or fluff content exists.

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 description, combined with rich schema documentation and annotations, gives an agent everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly: scope, side effects, idempotency, alternatives, and safety-relevant behavioral boundaries. No critical gap remains for this mutation tool.

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 has 100% parameter coverage and already documents issue, apply, plan_id, and profile thoroughly. The description does not add new parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the exact action ('Withdraws THIS SERVER'S OWN vote from an issue'), specifies the resource (an issue), and explicitly excludes other people's votes. It distinguishes itself from jira_add_vote and other sibling tools without ambiguity.

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 identifies the natural counterpart jira_add_vote for reversing the action and clearly scopes the tool to the server's own vote. It lacks an explicit 'use when / do not use when' statement, but the context makes the appropriate usage obvious.

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