vibo_answer_question

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds the confirm-gated behavior (preview without confirm) and the environment-dependent file handling (local paths vs base64). No contradiction with annotations, and the added context is valuable for the agent's decision-making.

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 five sentences and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence contributes distinct information (field mapping, other-option handling, file delivery modes, confirm requirement). It is slightly long but dense and well-structured for a tool with 12 parameters.

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 tool's complexity (12 params, no output schema), the description covers the key decision logic: which field to fill, how to handle 'other', file path vs inline delivery, and the confirm gate. Required IDs are left to the schema, which is acceptable. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description raises the value by grouping parameters semantically (text, selectedOptions, link, otherOptionTitle, imagePaths/filePaths vs images/files) and tying them to question types. This mapping is not evident from the raw schema alone.

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: 'Answer a section planning question.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the broad sibling list (e.g., vibo_list_section_questions) by explaining the exact response format mapping to question types. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit conditional guidance: which field to provide for each question type, when to use `otherOptionTitle`, and when to use local paths vs inline base64 ('when the server can read your disk... otherwise'). It also names the source for option IDs (vibo_list_section_questions). This is strong usage direction, even though no alternative answer tool exists.

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