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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds one genuinely useful non-annotation fact: the organizer key is required. However, for a 13-parameter mutation it never says whether omitted fields are left intact or cleared, nor that closing voting is reversible via closed=false.

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 fragments with no padding, which is good for front-loading, but the run-on 'voting Needs the organizer key' with missing punctuation makes it read as a sloppy concatenation of title and note rather than crafted prose.

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?

A 13-parameter, non-idempotent-by-default settings mutation with no output schema deserves more than one clause of prose. Critical context such as partial-update semantics, permission failure behavior, and interaction between closed/opensAt/closesAt is absent.

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 only 38% and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all, leaving title, ipLimit, opensAt, closesAt, results, allowChange, description and requireBallot undocumented in effect. The only loose tie is the mention of voting, which the schema already covers via the 'closed' description.

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?

Names a concrete verb and resource (change settings) and adds the second capability of ending/reopening voting, so the agent knows what the tool does without opening the schema. It does not distinguish behavior from the closest siblings (host_step, get_campaign), but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

'Needs the organizer key' gives a usable precondition for calling it, but there is no when/when-not guidance, no mention of what happens if settings are omitted, and no routing toward or away from siblings such as get_campaign or host_step.

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