Add and launch a poll

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

Annotations only supply generic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false). The description adds substantial context beyond them: the open-room prerequisite, draft-vs-launch behavior, default audience visibility vs show_results=false privacy, the rooms:write permission requirement, and the request_id retry mechanism. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure the annotations don't carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and appropriately dense: each sentence carries a distinct rule (launch/draft, type variants, visibility, return value, retry). It is on the long side for a single paragraph, but little of it is waste, so only a minor deduction.

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?

With 12 parameters and no output schema, the description still closes the important gaps: it describes the return value ('the survey with its id and the request_id'), the auth requirement, the open-room prerequisite, and how to relaunch a saved draft. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

Schema coverage is already 92%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by documenting type-conditional parameter rules the schema only partially implies: poll takes 2-8 options, quiz takes options plus correct_option (zero-based), rating takes scale 5 or 10, word_cloud takes no options, and allow_multiple applies to polls only. This conditional mapping adds real value.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Add a poll, quiz, rating or word cloud to a room and launch it') with clear scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings by name, pointing to get_survey_results and close_survey as the read/end counterparts. An agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('during a session to ask the audience something'), names the alternatives ('Read answers with get_survey_results and end a live survey with close_survey'), and gives the when-not condition ('launching needs an open room'; launch=false saves a draft). Nothing is left to inference.

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