meli_clear_question_attempt

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the removal is scoped to a LOCAL lock and produces no outbound message to the buyer, which is exactly the side-effect boundary an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool. It still doesn't say what state is lost or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

One compact sentence with two clauses, the destructive action front-loaded and the side-effect disclaimer trailing it. No filler, nothing repeated from the name.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no output schema, two undocumented required parameters, and no explanation of what the lock is, what verifies the "uncertain result", or what the boolean guard does. For a destructive cleanup tool the description leaves too much of the call contract unstated.

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% and the description never mentions either parameter. The required boolean "explicitly_requested" is entirely opaque — presumably a confirmation gate for a destructive operation, but nothing here says so, and "question_id" linkage to a prior meli_question_attempt call is only guessable from the tool name.

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 and object ("Elimina un bloqueo local") plus the trigger condition ("tras verificar un resultado incierto"), which is enough to tell it apart from meli_question_attempt or meli_answer_question. It stops short of naming the sibling it supersedes, and "bloqueo local" remains domain jargon an agent must infer.

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 phrase "tras verificar un resultado incierto" implies the precondition for calling it, and "no envía respuesta al comprador" rules out one expectation. But there is no explicit when-not, no statement of what to do first (e.g. run meli_question_attempt), and no mention of what happens if the result turns out to be certain.

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