minimax_answer_questionSubmits questionnaire answers for a given request, defaulting to a preview of the click plan and requiring preview=false with force=true to execute the actual submission.
提交问卷回答。默认 preview=true 仅预览点击计划；preview=false 且 force=true 才实际提交。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | No | 首选项坐标(可选) | |
| id | No | 问卷请求 ID 别名 (同 requestId) | |
| force | No | ||
| preview | No | ||
| requestId | Yes | ||
| selections | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the tool is two-stage with a default dry-run and an explicit force gate before real submission. It stops short of describing what side effects persist or what the preview returns, keeping it at a 4.
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 short clauses, zero filler, and the critical safety rule (the preview/force gate) is front-loaded immediately after the purpose statement.
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?
For a destructive, 6-parameter tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the riskiest dimension (how to actually commit) but says nothing about how selections map to steps, what requestId identifies, or what a preview response looks like, leaving real gaps.
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 only 33% across 6 parameters, so the description needs to compensate. It does explain the most consequential parameters (preview default true, force default false, and their conjunction), but requestId, id alias, selections, and at remain undocumented in the description, so compensation is partial.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource: '提交问卷回答' (submit survey answers), which tells an agent exactly what the tool does. It does not name the closest sibling (minimax_draft_answer) or explain how it differs, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
It states the operative precondition clearly: preview=true is the default and only previews the click plan, while actual submission requires preview=false AND force=true. That is concrete when/how-to-use guidance, but it gives no exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to use minimax_draft_answer or minimax_click instead).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.