publish_poll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state the key effect (transition to active and visible to invitees), but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., poll must be in draft state), permissions, or reversibility. This is partial transparency, not full.

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 that includes the verb, object, and effect. No wasted words, and each phrase adds value. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and outcome. It falls slightly short by not mentioning error scenarios or prerequisites, but given the low complexity, the description is adequate.

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 has high coverage (100%) with 'Poll ID to publish'. The description adds semantic meaning by specifying the poll must be a 'draft poll', which informs the expected state of the poll_id parameter. This goes beyond the schema's generic description.

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 ('Publishes') and resource ('a draft poll'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_poll, edit_poll, and archive_poll. It also specifies the outcome ('active and visible to invitees'), making the tool's function unambiguous.

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: it is used on draft polls to make them active. It implies this is the action for taking a poll from draft to published, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Still, for a simple tool, the context is sufficient.

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