send_poll

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate mutation. It adds useful behavioral context such as option count limits (2-10), quiz mode requirements, and auto-close constraints (5-600 seconds). However, it does not disclose potential side effects like message delivery failures or permission requirements, which would have enhanced transparency.

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 concise sentence followed by a neatly formatted list of parameter explanations. Every line provides actionable information without fluff or repetition of schema types. The structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 complex tool with 13 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the vast majority of behavior and constraints. It misses only the silent parameter and does not explicitly restate required parameters, but the schema handles those. Overall, it equips an agent with sufficient knowledge to invoke the tool 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?

The Args list explains most parameters with meaningful constraints and interdependencies (e.g., correct_option_index is 'для quiz=True', close_period_seconds has a 5-600 range). However, it omits descriptions for chat, question, and silent. Chat and question are self-explanatory from schema titles, but silent is not addressed, leaving a minor gap.

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 'Создать и отправить опрос' (Create and send a poll) uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the tool's action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like vote_poll and get_poll_results, which handle polling but not creation/sending.

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 implies usage when a poll needs to be created and sent, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear enough but lacks explicit guidance like 'use this to send polls instead of send_message'.

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