create_poll

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

The description discloses that the tool creates a poll (mutation) and returns a card_uri. It specifies constraints (2-4 choices, duration >0) and the integration with send_tweet. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility; it is sufficiently transparent.

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 concise with three clear sections: summary, constraints and usage, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information appears first.

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?

The description covers the creation behavior, constraints, and integration with send_tweet. It mentions the return value (card_uri). While an output schema exists but isn't shown, the description handles it adequately. Missing details like error handling are minor for this simple tool.

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 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by specifying that 'choices' must be a non-empty array of 2-4 strings and 'duration_minutes' must be >0. This adds complete semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Create an X poll') and the return value ('return its card URI'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also explains the relationship with send_tweet, differentiating it from other tweet-related tools.

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 provides a clear workflow: create the poll, then pass the card_uri to send_tweet. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though no direct alternative exists for poll creation.

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