Test Müşteri Sorusu Oluştur (Stage)

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

The description discloses that the tool always calls stageapigw, the question text cannot be empty, and the question enters evaluation before publication. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or what the tool returns (no output schema).

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, consisting of a few focused sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds key usage constraints and parameter hints with no redundant text.

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 creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, environment, constraints, and parameter usage. It is missing output details and authorization info, but is otherwise complete for a test-scenario 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by providing concrete examples (userId: 4147346), clarifying that contentId is productContentId, stating defaults for channelId and showUserName, and noting that userFullName is optional. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 tool creates a customer question for a product in the STAGE environment, and specifies it's used for trendyol_create_answer test scenarios, distinguishing it from siblings like trendyol_create_claim or trendyol_create_test_order.

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 explicitly limits usage to the stage environment and test scenarios, and provides guidance on parameter values (userId example, channelId default). However, it does not mention when not to use it or specify alternative tools.

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