Vote in poll

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

The description goes well beyond the sparse annotations (all false), detailing the irreversibility of voting, replacement semantics, draft-confirm mechanism, and that canceling to zero is not supported. Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the description adds critical behavioral context.

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 coherent paragraph with minimal waste. It front-loads the key mechanism and each sentence adds behavioral information. Slightly dense but effective.

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 main workflow and key constraints (irreversibility, replace behavior, two-step process). It lacks explicit return value details and error conditions, but given no output schema, it provides sufficient context for usage. The reference to checking myChoices via get_poll helps close the loop.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), but the description adds extra meaning: choices must be a full set, confirm token origin, and verification at confirm step. This adds moderate value beyond the schema's 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 is for voting in a poll via a two-step draft->confirm process. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes the mechanism from simple voting. The name and title align, and the description explains the unique behavior of replacing votes and the confirm token.

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 implicitly tells when to use the tool (to vote in a poll) and describes the two-step flow, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_poll. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, though the sibling context suggests get_poll for reading results.

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