Online Poll Maker

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the draft expires 24 hours after creation and the agent must not describe the poll as published. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or what happens when a draft expires mid-edit, so it is not exhaustive for a write tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its constraints, followed by the return shape and the critical handoff instruction. No filler, and the prohibition on announcing publication is placed last where it lands hardest.

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?

An output schema exists, so listing id, token, version and edit_url is mild redundancy, but the expiry window and the publish-handoff rule are the details an agent would otherwise get wrong. Together with the fully documented schema and annotations, the definition is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents title, questions, email_mode, email_purpose and the nested image_url fields with character limits and defaults. The description only restates the question/option count bounds already present in the schema, adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a poll draft') and immediately bounds the shape (1-100 single-choice questions, 2-10 options each). This is unmistakably distinct from the sibling get_poll_draft and update_poll_draft, which read and modify drafts rather than create them.

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 gives concrete post-call workflow guidance: hand the edit_url to the person so they can review, verify and publish it in the browser, and never claim the poll is published. It stops short of explicitly naming update_poll_draft as the path for later edits, so the alternative selection is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description adds the key behavioral fact that drafts can be mutated out-of-band in the browser, which is why the call must precede updates. It also signals that the result includes a version, supporting optimistic-concurrency use, consistent with idempotentHint=false. It does not describe pagination or what happens when the token is stale, which would have pushed this higher.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the operative rule. Nothing is redundant with the title or the schema, and every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 low-complexity two-parameter read with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description supplies the one non-obvious thing: the concurrency rationale for calling it before updates. Only minor gaps remain, such as error behavior on an invalid or expired token.

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% and both parameters are described there as values returned by create_poll_draft, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. With an output schema present, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Read the latest content and version of a draft" states a specific verb (read) and resource (draft) plus the exact scope (latest content and version), which cleanly separates it from create_poll_draft and update_poll_draft. Sibling tools are not named explicitly, so the differentiation rests on inference rather than a direct pointer.

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?

"Call this before every update" gives a concrete, prescriptive when-to-use rule tied to a real workflow (read-before-write), and the following clause explains why. There is no explicit when-not guidance, but for a two-sibling toolset the usage condition is unambiguous.

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

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

The description says the tool will "Replace the whole draft content" and warns against overwriting newer content, which describes a destructive overwrite of existing draft content. That conflicts with destructiveHint=false, which indicates only additive updates. The version-conflict guidance is valuable, but the destructiveHint contradiction requires a score of 1.

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 short and front-loaded: the replacement action comes first, followed by the version source and conflict-recovery rule. Every sentence serves the workflow, with no filler or redundant restatement.

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 tool has a fully described schema and an output schema, so return values do not need explanation in the description. The description supplies the critical whole-replacement and optimistic-concurrency context. It is nearly complete, though it does not address the destructive nature of replacing prior draft content.

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 the schema already documents id, token, version, and content in detail. The description reinforces the version parameter's origin and the version_conflict behavior, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for the other parameters. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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, "Replace the whole draft content," which clearly identifies a whole-object update rather than a read or create. It is easy to distinguish from get_poll_draft and create_poll_draft based on the stated action.

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 gives a concrete prerequisite: send the version just read with get_poll_draft. It also explains the version_conflict recovery path: re-read the draft, re-apply the change, and do not overwrite newer content with an older copy. It does not explicitly contrast when to use this versus create_poll_draft, but the surrounding context makes that distinction clear.

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