messages_send_poll

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral note that the poll reaches other people on the platform and requires explicit user confirmation, but says nothing about delivery outcome, rate limits, or what happens on failure.

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 operative information (what it does, option range) is front-loaded in the first line, and the parenthetical endpoint/gRPC/socket mapping is compact. The middle sentence is generic boilerplate about confirmation that is relevant but slightly padded.

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 nested-object, 8-parameter mutation with no output schema and no parameter descriptions anywhere, the definition omits the one thing an agent most needs: which of the several target identifiers to supply and whether they conflict. The endpoint breadcrumb does not compensate for that gap.

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% across 8 parameters, including five mutually exclusive-looking target selectors (channelId, chatId, contactId, phoneNumber, username) plus metadata and replyToMessageId. The description only restates the poll's 2..12 option range, which the schema already enforces via minItems/maxItems, and explains nothing about how a target must be chosen.

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 first clause states a specific verb and resource ("Send a poll") and adds a concrete constraint ("question plus 2..12 options"), which separates it from generic siblings like messages_send and messages_send_interactive. It never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 second sentence gives a real usage rule: state exactly what will happen and obtain the user's confirmation before sending. However there is no guidance on when to choose a poll over messages_send or messages_send_interactive, and no prerequisites or channel requirements are stated, so usage is only implied.

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