vote_poll

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

The annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether votes can be changed, if the user must not have voted already, or any side effects. It is a bare operation description.

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 extremely short, consisting of a one-sentence purpose and a single parameter specification. Every word is functional, but it lacks sections for the other parameters, making it too sparse to be highly effective.

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?

Given the tool has three required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should cover all of them and provide context. It covers only one parameter and gives no usage guidance or behavioral context. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for the missing parameter and usage information.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains option_indices with 0-based indexing and the single/multiple distinction, but it does not explain chat or message_id, which are required and would help identify the poll message. This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 'Проголосовать в poll' clearly states the operation: vote in a poll. It uses the specific verb 'vote' and resource 'poll', distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_poll (create) and get_poll_results (read).

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?

No information is provided about when to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites such as having a poll message or constraints. The description gives no exclusions or alternatives.

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