vote_on_poll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and a limitation ('not supported by API'), but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or what the output entails. 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 brief and front-loaded with the main action, but the parenthetical note 'not supported by API' adds useful context without unnecessary elaboration. It's efficient, though slightly under-specified for clarity.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.

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, and the tool description adds no information about the parameters ('tweet_id' and 'choice'). It doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their formats, or valid values, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 states the action ('vote on a poll') but lacks specificity about what resource it operates on (e.g., a Twitter poll) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'create_poll_tweet'. It's vague about the platform or context, though it implies a poll-related operation.

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, such as 'create_poll_tweet' or other voting mechanisms. It mentions 'not supported by API', which hints at limitations but doesn't clarify usage scenarios or prerequisites.

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