telegram_send_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 a send action and a JSON Message return value, but it does not explain side effects such as the poll being published to chat members, permission requirements, or what happens when chat_id is null (the schema marks it optional/default null). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose and then a compact param list followed by return type. Every line adds information, though the param blocks could be tightened; no superfluous text.

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 straightforward send tool this is largely sufficient, but the lack of usage alternatives and the unexplained optional chat_id behavior leave gaps. Since there are no annotations, the description should have addressed the null chat_id case and any constraints around poll creation.

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 0%, so the description compensates by documenting all five parameters. It adds length constraints for question and options, and clarifies the boolean flags, but chat_id is only described as 'Target chat identifier', leaving the nullable/default-null behavior unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Send a native poll to a chat or channel.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like telegram_send_message or telegram_send_photo, which cover different message types, and from get/delete actions.

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 implies usage through the verb and resource but does not explicitly say when to choose this over telegram_send_message or other send tools, nor does it list exclusions or alternative conditions. An agent must infer from the name and the sentence that polls are the intended use.

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