Close an active poll

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

The annotations provide openWorldHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds the key behavioral effect ('no further votes are accepted'). It does not disclose whether existing votes are preserved, whether the action is reversible, or any permission requirements. Given the annotations, the description offers minimal additional transparency beyond the core effect.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and outcome. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema or parameter descriptions, this one-sentence description is inadequate. It omits guidance on how to identify the poll (peer/messageId), what the response looks like, and any additional side effects. The annotations provide minimal support, leaving significant gaps in context.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter explanations. The agent must infer that 'peer' identifies the chat and 'messageId' identifies the poll, but this is not stated. The description fails to compensate for the total lack of parameter documentation.

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 'finalize' and identifies the resource 'poll', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like send_poll, vote_poll, and get_poll_results. It conveys the exact action and outcome succinctly.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when an active poll exists and you want to stop voting. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like vote_poll or get_poll_results, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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