invite_to_poll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the disclosure burden. It only states the action 'invites' without mentioning side effects, permissions, idempotency, handling of invalid IDs, or response behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no filler or redundant detail. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite having only 4 parameters and no output schema, the empty annotations and minimal description leave gaps: no mention of error cases, preconditions (e.g., poll state), or return values. The description is too thin for a write operation that should clarify expected behavior.

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%, meaning all four parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics beyond echoing the invite_to enum values ('users or channels'); it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or input formats.

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 a specific action ('Invites') on a specific resource ('users or channels') with a clear scope ('to participate in a poll'). This distinguishes it from similar invite tools for events/channels by the explicit 'poll' context, but it does not explicitly contrast with those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., poll must exist), and no advice on choosing between 'channels' or 'users' in the invite_to parameter. The description is purely declarative with no context for decision-making.

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