meli_save_business_policy

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

The description adds real context beyond annotations: it explicitly says the policy is NOT sent to Mercado Libre, resolving the ambiguity of openWorldHint=true. However, with destructiveHint=true, it never warns that saving may overwrite an existing policy, nor does it describe persistence/confirmation behavior. Useful but incomplete for a destructive write.

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 waste. Efficient, though brevity comes at the cost of the missing details noted elsewhere.

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 write tool with no output schema and 0% param documentation, the definition should explain valid topic values, overwrite behavior, and what users should expect. It covers only the surface purpose, leaving an agent without enough to call it safely and 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. The examples (facturación, envíos, garantías) hint at valid topic values, but the rule_text parameter (the actual policy content) is entirely unexplained, leaving half the required inputs undocumented.

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+resource ("Guarda una política") and clarifies scope with examples (facturación, envíos, garantías). The clause "sin enviarla a Mercado Libre" sharpens what kind of save it is. It does not clearly differentiate from the sibling meli_save_product_rule or meli_business_memory, which is the main gap.

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?

Usage is implied: store an owner-provided policy locally rather than sending it. The "sin enviarla a Mercado Libre" clause sets a boundary on when this applies, but no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance is given (e.g., versus meli_save_product_rule).

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