Vote in a poll

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

The description discloses that a vote cannot be changed or taken back, requires confirm: true, and implies public visibility, all beyond what annotations alone convey. Annotations mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which align with the irreversible write behavior; no contradiction 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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core action and the most critical constraints (zero-based indexing, irreversibility, confirm requirement) are front-loaded and directly actionable.

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 mutation tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers all non-obvious call requirements: zero-based indexes, the required confirm flag, and irreversibility. No output schema exists, and the description does not need to explain return values for this simple vote action.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already well-documented. The description adds little beyond reinforcing zero-based indexing and the confirm requirement; it provides context but not substantial new parameter-level detail.

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 states a specific verb ('Vote'), a clear resource ('a poll'), and the exact method ('by option index, counting from zero'). It unambiguously distinguishes vote_poll from all sibling tools, none of which target poll voting.

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 makes the intended action obvious and stresses the mandatory confirm flag, which is essential for correct usage. It does not list explicit alternatives or exclusions, but there is no sibling poll-voting tool, so no alternative routing is needed.

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