withdraw_votes_from_proposal

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds behavioral context by specifying the proposal must be completed or canceled, and that votes are reclaimed, which aligns with the destructive nature.

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 description is only two sentences, with the first sentence stating the action and limitation, and the second describing the effect. Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, when it works, and the result. It does not mention prerequisites like having votes deposited, but that is implied by the action and the context of voting tools. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by implying that the proposalId parameter must refer to a completed or canceled proposal, which is not explicitly stated in the schema's parameter description. This extra guidance improves parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states the action 'Withdraw (reclaim) votes from a completed or canceled proposal,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'withdraw_votes_to_jst' by focusing on the proposal rather than conversion to JST.

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 clearly states the tool only works for proposals that are no longer active, providing a clear when-to-use condition. It also mentions that votes become available for other proposals or conversion to JST, giving context on subsequent actions, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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