manage_solution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only lists action names and parameter mappings. It does not explain side effects, required permissions, return behavior, or consequences of mutations like 'publish_article' or 'delete' actions. While actions imply read/write behavior, the lack of any outcome details is a notable gap.

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 organized into an action list followed by parameter definitions, making it easy to scan. It is lengthy due to 16 parameters, but each line adds unique value. Slight redundancy exists (e.g., repeating action names in parameter mappings) but overall it is efficient.

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?

The description covers the parameter space and action semantics well, but for a tool with 16 parameters and multiple action families, it lacks explicit required-parameter per action and return value expectations. However, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, so the overall completeness is adequate.

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%, but the description compensates thoroughly by mapping each parameter to the actions it supports (e.g., 'folder_id: Folder ID (get/update folder, list/create articles)'). This adds significant value beyond the raw schema, which merely lists field names and types without usage context.

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 clearly states 'Unified solution operations for categories, folders, and articles' and enumerates specific actions for each resource type (e.g., 'list_categories', 'publish_article'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target other domains like tickets, changes, or assets.

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 provides clear context on which action applies to which resource and which parameters are relevant for each action (e.g., 'category_id: Category ID (get/update category, list folders, create folder)'). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the domain boundaries are implicit in 'solution operations'.

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