Remove Vote

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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false indicates mutation, destructiveHint=false indicates non-destructive, idempotentHint=true indicates safe retries). The description adds minimal context beyond the schema, mainly the ownership qualifier 'your vote.' No contradictions with annotations, but it does not elaborate on error behavior or 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently conveys the action and target.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is underexplained. It omits the crucial relationship between 'id' and 'resource', fails to state what happens if the vote does not exist, and does not mention that the operation affects only the current user's vote. Annotations cover safety but not these operational details.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the 'resource' parameter by listing allowed values, but it does not clarify the meaning of 'id' — the critical fact that it is the ID of the resource (epic/story/task/issue) rather than a vote ID. This is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and the object ('your vote'), with the target resource types explicitly listed ('epic, user story, task, or issue'). This is a specific verb+resource+scope that unambiguously distinguishes it from vote_add.

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 implies usage (use when you want to remove a vote) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus vote_add or when not to use it. It also does not clarify prerequisites, such as whether the user must have previously voted or whether the resource must exist.

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