stop_poll

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it closes a poll and returns results, but omits crucial details such as: whether the poll can be reopened, what happens if the poll is already closed, whether any permissions are needed, and the exact nature of the returned results. This falls short for a state-changing operation.

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, making it concise and front-loaded with the action. It avoids unnecessary filler. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices critical information, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 is relatively simple with two parameters, but the absence of annotations and output schema raises the need for contextual detail. The description only vaguely mentions 'final results' without specifying the return structure, and it fails to mention important constraints (e.g., only active polls, bot ownership). This is below the minimum viable level for a mutation tool.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description adds no explanation of what chat_id and message_id represent or their format. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the tool relies entirely on the schema types (integer) without clarifying that message_id must reference the poll message. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Close') and resource ('poll'), and clearly states the outcome ('return the final results'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_poll or delete_message, as it uniquely targets stopping an existing poll.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. For instance, it doesn't mention that the poll must have been sent by the bot, that the chat_id and message_id refer to the poll's location, or that this action cannot be undone. Sibling tools like send_poll exist but no contrast is given.

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