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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses authorization requirements ('Needs the private organizer link') and a non-obvious side effect ('Reopening also clears a final time'). It also explains downstream consequences the annotations cannot convey: existing answers are kept and participants can answer new options via their edit link, which matters because the tool is non-idempotent and modifies open-world shared state.

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?

Four tight sentences: trigger first, then requirement, then side effect, then retention guarantee and exclusion. No filler, and the most decision-relevant clause (the organizer link requirement) appears early.

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 and annotations cover safety/idempotency, so the description's job is to cover intent, prerequisites, and side effects — all present. For a 6-parameter partial-update tool, the agent has everything needed to decide and call it correctly, including the fact that omitted fields are left untouched and answers survive.

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 each field with examples, enums, and limits, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only a light gloss ('private organizer link', 'add time options... close or reopen voting') and no format or constraint detail 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('change an existing date poll') and then enumerates the exact mutation surface: add time options, close or reopen voting, change title/place/note. The word 'existing' plus the change-oriented scope clearly separates it from create_date_poll, finalize_date_poll, and show_date_poll_results.

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?

'Use this when the organizer wants to change an existing date poll' plus the explicit exclusion 'Does not remove options or answers' gives both a positive trigger and a boundary. It does not name a sibling to use for the excluded cases (e.g. deletion) or for setting a final time, so routing is clear on intent but not fully closed.

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