unvote_poll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a mutating action but does not disclose whether retracting is idempotent, what happens if no vote exists, whether only the current user's vote is affected, or whether poll tallies are updated immediately. This is a material gap for a writelike operation.

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 entire description is one short, direct sentence with no redundancy or filler. Its brevity is appropriate for a simple operation, though it is near the edge of being under-specified rather than elegantly concise.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this single phrase leaves several correctness-relevant unknowns: error behavior when no prior vote exists, whether the action is reversible, and what response is returned. Given `vote_poll` exists as a sibling, a brief note contrasting when to call `unvote_poll` vs `vote_poll` would meaningfully improve completeness.

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 adds no meaning beyond the raw parameter names `post_id` and `poll_name`. While `post_id` is relatively self-explanatory, `poll_name` is ambiguous, and the description does not clarify whether it is a poll title, key, slug, or other identifier. Description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'retract' and names the resource 'poll vote', making the action clear and semantically distinct from the sibling `vote_poll`. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the inverse relationship is obvious enough to differentiate the tool.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool relative to `vote_poll` or other vote-related siblings. UNLESS context implies un-voting, there is no mention of prerequisites such as having already voted, nor is there any when-not advice. The phrase 'retract' gives an implied use case but not explicit direction.

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