vote_poll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the vote is delivered via signal-cli and visible in real time, that re-voting overwrites, that partial updates are not supported, and that voting on a terminated poll returns an error. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure for a simple action.

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 lengthy but every sentence contributes unique guidance. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers mechanics, identification, and exclusions without redundancy. Slightly long but efficient given the tool's complexity.

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 tool with no output schema and multiple parameters with dependencies, the description covers all necessary context: how to identify the poll, how to construct votes, the one-of recipient/group_id rule, error on terminated polls, and alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds substantial meaning: it explains that votes are 0-based indices, that exactly one of recipient or group_id must be provided, and how to obtain target_author and target_timestamp from get_conversation. This goes well beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 the verb 'Cast your vote' and the resource 'an active Signal poll in a DM or group conversation'. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by saying 'Do NOT use to create a poll — use create_poll instead' and references terminate_poll, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use ('Use when responding to an open poll in a conversation') and when-not-to-use ('Do NOT use to create a poll'), and names the alternative (create_poll). It also explains the conditions for single-choice vs multi-select and how to identify the poll via target_author and target_timestamp from get_conversation, giving complete routing guidance.

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