meli_answer_question

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-annotated behavior: it only publishes if the question is still unanswered, and it serializes agents sharing the same state folder (a concurrency guarantee). It still omits what happens when the question is already answered, whether the call errors or no-ops, and what the state folder mechanism entails.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and the guard condition, with no filler. It is efficient; the problem is under-specification rather than verbosity.

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, open-world mutation with three required parameters, zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description does far too little: it never explains 'explicitly_requested', does not say what is returned or what happens on an already-answered question, and gives no indication of required permissions. The Spanish-only text in an otherwise English tool surface also adds friction.

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 0% across all three required parameters, and the description says nothing about any of them. In particular 'explicitly_requested' is an opaque boolean that is documented nowhere — neither schema nor description — leaving the agent to guess its meaning and correct value.

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 names an action ('Publica una respuesta') and a condition ('si sigue sin responder'), so the agent can infer it posts an answer to a pending question. However, it never states the resource explicitly (a MercadoLibre buyer question) and 'respuesta real' is vague — it does not distinguish this from siblings such as meli_question_attempt or meli_unanswered_questions.

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?

'Si sigue sin responder' implies a precondition for use, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative. The agent must guess how this relates to meli_question_attempt / meli_clear_question_attempt, which appear to be the attempt-tracking siblings referenced obliquely by the state-folder clause.

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