huddo_close_choices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the effect (buttons turn off, counts stay) and the visible side effect agents will observe ('[closed choices on msg_...] line'). It stops short of covering permission requirements, reversibility, or fate of in-flight answers.

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 tight sentences, action first, then observable effect. No filler or redundancy.

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 no-annotation mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition explains both the state change and the textual signal agents will see. Only permission/reversibility details are 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 description coverage is 100%, so both the message id and the as/room options are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the message argument ('your own message sent with option or form') and adds nothing on `as` or `room`, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Stop taking answers') plus the resource ('your own message sent with option or form'), so an agent can tell this closes a poll/form rather than sending or answering one. It does not name a sibling like huddo_unsend or huddo_answer to contrast against, which keeps it from a 5.

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 condition for use is implied by 'your own message sent with option or form' (ownership + message type required). There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance or pointer to alternatives such as unsending or editing instead.

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