Revoke vote

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds the non-obvious behavioral detail that penalties may apply. It does not explain the nature or severity of penalties, so it stops short of full transparency.

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 sentence with the core action front-loaded and the important warning in a parenthetical. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter action with annotations covering safety, the schema and description together are nearly complete. Minor gaps include the vagueness of 'penalties may apply' and no mention of what happens if the caller has not previously voted.

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 100%, so both required parameters are already documented with types, patterns, and explanations. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Revoke a previously cast vote') and is naturally contrasted with sibling cast_vote. The title and description are aligned, so an agent can immediately tell what the tool does.

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 phrase 'previously cast vote' implies the tool should be used after a vote has been cast, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives or what conditions apply. No exclusions or prerequisities are stated.

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