create_poll_tweet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Create') which implies a write operation, but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 concise at just four words, front-loading the core functionality with zero wasted words. Every element ('Create', 'tweet', 'poll') earns its place, making it efficient though potentially under-specified.

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 a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description lacks crucial context about parameters, behavior, and usage compared to siblings like 'post_tweet'.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'a poll' which hints at 'choices' and possibly 'duration_minutes', but doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their formats, or constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural information.

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') and resource ('a tweet with a poll'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'post_tweet' by specifying the poll feature, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other tweet-creation 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'post_tweet' or 'quote_tweet'. It lacks context about prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, offering only a basic functional statement without usage direction.

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