create_poll

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns 'the poll timestamp needed for vote_poll and terminate_poll', and that multi_select defaults to false. However, it does not mention error handling or behavior when invalid parameters are provided, which would improve transparency.

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 concise with four sentences, each adding essential information: core action, option requirement, multi_select behavior, recipient/group choice, return value, and reference to terminate_poll. No unnecessary words, and the most important info is front-loaded.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to configure it, required parameters, optional behavior (multi_select), and how the return value is used by other tools. It is complete for the intended use case.

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%, but the description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema: it clarifies the mutual exclusivity of recipient and group_id (not enforced in schema), and explains the effect of multi_select (allow multiple answers). This goes beyond the schema's descriptions, earning a score above baseline.

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 'Create a poll and send it to a Signal contact or group.' This is a specific verb (Create) and resource (poll) with a clear target (Signal). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vote_poll and terminate_poll by referencing them.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Provide at least 2 options', 'Set multi_select=true to allow voters to pick multiple answers', 'Provide either recipient (DM) or group_id (group) — exactly one is required', and recommends using terminate_poll to close the poll. This gives clear usage conditions and alternatives.

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