close_poll

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

Beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description explains irreversibility, that voting stops, that results become visible regardless of result_mode, and the required authorization. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 tightly organized: one-sentence purpose, behavioral consequences, permission/irreversibility warning, then args and return. Every sentence adds relevant information with no filler.

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 two-parameter mutating tool, the description covers authorization, side effects, irreversibility, and return shape. The output schema signal reduces the need to document return values further, and nothing critical is missing.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the Args section adds plain-language meaning: token is the conversation token and poll_id is the poll to close. It does not go into lookup/origin details, but it compensates for the bare schema titles.

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 states a specific action ('Close a poll in a Talk conversation') and distinguishes this from sibling poll operations like create_poll and vote_poll. It also explains the consequences of closing, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

It clearly communicates when to use it (to end a poll and reveal results) and adds a permission constraint (creator/moderator only). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use X instead', but the context is sufficiently clear.

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