vote_poll

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Vote in a poll') without explaining effects like whether an existing vote is overwritten, whether votes can be changed, idempotency, or required authentication. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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 very short and front-loads the core action in the first sentence. The parameter note is minimal and targeted. It earns full conciseness but loses structure points for not expanding on required parameter semantics.

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 mutating tool with three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain how post_id and poll_name identify the poll, what options values are accepted, what the response indicates, or what happens on repeat votes. An agent would need additional information to confidently use it correctly.

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 33%, with only 'options' documented. The description repeats the 'options' meaning but adds no detail about post_id or poll_name, leaving two required parameters semantically unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 action ('Vote in a poll attached to a post') and identifies the resource (a poll attached to a post). It is distinct from sibling tools like unvote_poll by the verb 'vote', though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 when to use the tool: when a user wants to vote in a poll attached to a post. However, it provides no explicit guidance about alternatives, such as unvote_poll for removing a vote, or any conditions or prerequisites for voting.

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