add_faq

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not say whether the FAQ publishes immediately, how it interacts with display_order/defaults, or whether permissions or moderation apply. For a write operation with only partial annotation coverage, this is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding or redundancy. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity stems partly from saying less than it could rather than from dense information.

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?

With fully documented params and a safety annotation present, the core facts needed to invoke the tool are covered. However, for an add/mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits what happens on success (e.g., where the FAQ appears, whether it is immediately live), leaving a modest gap.

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 100%, so question, answer and display_order (including its default of 0) are already fully documented. The description only restates question+answer and adds no format, length, or ordering semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (FAQ = question + answer) and scopes it to the website FAQ page. It is distinguishable from siblings like update_faq, remove_faq and list_faqs by name, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_faq or list_faqs, no prerequisites, and no mention of when a FAQ should be added rather than modified. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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