delete_poll

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value by qualifying that destruction: it is a SOFT delete, items leave the thread view but are recoverable by a group admin. It does not explain the response body, but the destructive-scope nuance is the important missing piece and it is supplied.

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 tightly packed sentences: the action and its soft-delete consequence come first, then the alternative routing. The '1 call' fragment is the only mildly extraneous element.

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?

No output schema exists, and none is needed for a delete. The description covers what is removed, what is recoverable, by whom, and how to achieve the adjacent goal (closing a poll), which is everything an agent needs before invoking it.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Poll id or short key.' The description only names id_or_key without adding format, accepted-key, or lookup semantics, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 and resource ('Discard a poll') plus the identifying parameter, and immediately clarifies the scope of the operation. An agent can distinguish this from delete_comment, delete_discussion, and update_poll 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 routes the agent away from this tool for a common mis-use case: ending voting is done via update_poll with closing_at, and it notes 'no immediate close exists'. That is a concrete when-not-to-use plus the named alternative.

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