Vote in a poll

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the bare action. The openWorldHint annotation warns of potential unintended side effects, but the description does not elaborate on vote idempotency, whether votes can be changed, or error conditions. It is not misleading, but it misses an opportunity to clarify behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded in a single sentence. It avoids fluff and is well-structured, but its brevity comes at the cost of missing important usage and parameter details.

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?

Given the tool has four parameters, no output schema, and only openWorldHint annotation, the description is too minimal. It does not explain prerequisites, behavior on failure, or distinct parameter semantics, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies that answerIndexes are the indexes of chosen options, but peer and messageId are left to their names, and accountId is unexplained. This is insufficient for a tool with four parameters and no schema-level descriptions.

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 tool's function: casting a vote on a poll using the indexes of chosen options. It uses a specific verb ('cast a vote') and resource ('poll'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_poll, close_poll, and get_poll_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., poll must be active, user must be logged in) or when not to use it (e.g., closed polls). The description only states the action without context for selection among related tools.

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