create_poll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention parameter constraints (character limits, option counts, duration values) and the default duration, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether the poll is immediately visible, whether it requires authentication, or whether it is irreversible. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

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 concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a clear 'Args' section with per-parameter details. Every sentence earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, 2 required, one with default) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and constraints. It lacks explicit mention of authentication requirements or error handling, but these are likely implied by sibling tools like check_login_status and are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Overall, it is sufficient for a straightforward poll-creation action.

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 input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by detailing each parameter: question (up to 140 chars), options (list with min/max and per-option length), and duration (enumerated values and default). This adds meaning far beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 tool's action ('Create and publish') and its resource ('an interactive poll') with a specific destination ('to your LinkedIn feed'). It is distinct from sibling tools like create_post (which would handle regular posts) and get_feed (which reads), so an agent can easily tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 by specifying 'interactive poll', which naturally distinguishes it from create_post, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions (e.g., being logged in). Guidance is left to inference rather than being directly stated.

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