Create Broadcast Channel Poll

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so it's a non-idempotent write operation. The description adds that it 'Returns: Poll/message ID,' which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behaviors like rate limits, permission requirements, or error conditions. Given that annotations already cover the basic mutability, the added return information earns a 3.

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 a single, clear statement followed by a structured list of parameters and return value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or filler content. Every sentence adds useful information.

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?

The tool has only three required parameters, all documented in both the schema and description. The return value is specified. While it doesn't mention that the broadcast channel must already exist or any error behaviors, for a straightforward create operation this is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% — every parameter is already described in the schema (channel_id, question, options with min/max items). The description repeats these definitions verbatim without adding further meaning, such as expected formats or additional constraints. With full coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific action: 'Creates a poll in an Instagram broadcast channel.' It identifies the verb (creates), the resource (poll), and the context (broadcast channel). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_send_broadcast_channel_message or meta_get_broadcast_channel_messages, which handle messages or retrieval.

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?

While it's implied that this tool is for creating polls, the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It does not reference sibling tools or conditions under which another tool would be more appropriate.

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