send_poll_vote

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, which the description reinforces by stating 'Each call replaces the caller's prior vote.' The description also adds the constraint that options must match exactly. There are no contradictions, and the description provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing key behavioral details. Every sentence adds value, and 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and critical behaviors (replaces prior vote, exact option match). With annotations providing idempotency, the description is fairly complete for a tool with three required parameters and no output schema. Minor missing details like error cases do not detract significantly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the constraint that options must match the poll exactly, which adds marginal value over the schema's own 'must match the poll exactly.' No additional parameter-specific context is provided.

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 identifies the action: 'Cast (or re-cast) a vote on a previously-seen poll.' It specifies the verb (cast/re-cast) and resource (vote on poll), and is distinct from sibling tools like send_poll (create poll) and get_poll_results (view results).

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 explains that each call replaces the caller's prior vote and that options must match exactly. This provides context for when to use the tool (voting or changing a vote) and includes a key constraint. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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