stop_poll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states 'mark it as closed' but does not disclose if the action is reversible, how votes are finalized, or any side effects. The chat_id default behavior is noted, which is helpful, but other behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, permissions) are absent.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence captures the core action, and the second adds a critical default. Every word earns its place.

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 simple stop action with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the main behavior and chat_id default. Minor gap: it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation), but that is often implicit for destructive actions.

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 100% (all params described). The description adds explicit default behavior for chat_id ('targets the default log group') beyond the schema's optional indication. No additional detail on reply_markup, but the added context for chat_id is valuable.

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 verb 'Stop' and resource 'poll', and adds 'mark it as closed' for effect clarity. It distinguishes from siblings like send_poll by being the only tool for closing a poll, and the default log group note adds scope precision.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives compared to siblings. The description implies usage for closing a poll, but does not mention scenarios where other tools (e.g., edit_message) might be relevant or when not to use it.

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