polls_end

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

The description discloses the effect on Discord ('result message is updated'), the authorization constraint, and the return shape. These add meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) without contradicting them.

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 short, front-loaded with 'Purpose', and uses labeled sections (Purpose, Note, Returns). Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 two-required-parameter tool, this description covers purpose, a key constraint, and the return value. The schema covers parameter details and the output schema is present, so the description is complete for the task.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for channel_id, message_id, and audit_reason. The description adds no extra parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Immediately end a poll (expire it)', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like polls_get_voters, and the note about author-only restriction adds precise scope.

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 purpose implies the usage context, and the note 'Only the poll author (your bot) can end its own polls' provides a clear prerequisite and limitation. There are no direct alternatives to exclude among siblings, so the guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.

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