calmesh_create_poll

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

With no annotations available, the description takes on the full burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states that invitation emails are sent, that 'book' scope is required, and that the response includes a shareable URL. This covers key behavioral aspects: authentication, external side effect (emails), and return value. It doesn't mention reversibility or idempotency, but the create operation is inherently a write, and the stated details are strong.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and following with side effects and auth. Every sentence contributes meaningful information: the action, the side effect, the return value, and the required scope. There is no fluff or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (6 parameters, no nested objects) and the lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main aspects: what it does, the email side effect, auth requirement, and return value. It could optionally mention the default duration or how the shareable URL behaves, but the schema already documents parameters. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and use the tool 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of all six parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema, such as default values or format specifics. It doesn't worsen or improve the parameter understanding, so the baseline is appropriate.

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: 'Create a scheduling poll' and clearly states the additional action 'send invitation emails to participants'. This distinguishes it from siblings like calmesh_create_booking and calmesh_create_event, which create different resource types. It also mentions the return value (shareable URL), further clarifying its purpose.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for creating scheduling polls and emailing invitations. It implies when to use it (when you need to poll multiple participants) without explicitly naming alternatives, but the context is clear enough to guide an agent. It doesn't state when not to use it, but the context distinguishes it from booking or event creation.

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