archive_poll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core effect (archiving/unarchiving) and implies reversibility by including 'unarchives', but it does not disclose permissions, side effects, or what archiving entails for the poll. Some transparency is present, but critical context is missing.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Archives or unarchives a poll.' It is concise with zero wasted words, and every element serves the purpose.

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 (2 parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly sufficient. It clearly identifies the operation, and the schema handles parameter details. However, it omits any mention of return value or prerequisites, which are not critical for a toggle but would enhance completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%: the schema explains that archive is 'true to archive, false to unarchive' and poll_id is 'Poll ID'. The description adds little beyond this, 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 'Archives or unarchives a poll.' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like publish_poll or archive_conversation. It states exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 implies usage for toggling archive state on a poll, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or situational guidance. Since the purpose is clear, usage is inferable but not fully explicit.

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