send_poll

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds that the send supports revoting, shuffling, user-added options, and multiple correct answers, which is useful capability context. It still omits how anonymous/members-only/gated polls behave and whether a poll can be edited after sending.

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, with the core action front-loaded and the feature list following. The feature enumeration is dense but every item corresponds to a real capability; only slight waste in the redundant 'in options' phrasing.

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 34-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema description coverage, this description is substantially under-specified. An agent would not know how close_date interacts with open_period, which parameters are quiz-only, or what permission context is required to call it successfully.

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 only 26% across 34 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at revoting, shuffling, user-added options, descriptions, media in options and multiple correct answers, but never connects these to parameter names or formats. Timing and audience controls (close_date vs open_period, is_anonymous, members_only, correct_option_ids, protect_content, business_connection_id) remain undocumented in both schema and 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a poll or quiz') that clearly identifies the creation operation and its two variants. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as stop_poll, send_checklist, or send_message, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: no statement of chat/permission prerequisites, no mention of stop_poll for closing an existing poll, and no note about when a checklist would be preferable. The second sentence lists features rather than usage conditions.

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