Vote on poll

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only but non-destructive, idempotent, open-world action. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the vote is publicly visible, the response includes counts after voting, option 0 is a retraction, and the effect can be undone with one call.

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 front-loaded, compact, and each sentence adds relevant information: action scope, vote replacement/retraction, return behavior, visibility, and reversibility. There is no unnecessary 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 simple mutation tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It covers the action, edge cases like duplicate voting and retraction, visibility, return behavior, and reversibility.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the meaning of option 0 and vote replacement, but it does not add syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource (vote on a post's poll) and covers the related actions of changing or retracting a vote. It is clear, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_poll_results, which could be the right tool when the user only wants to read 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?

The description makes the usage context clear: use it to vote, change a vote, or take a vote back. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as using get_poll_results for read-only viewing.

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