Responder pregunta

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false. The description adds two meaningful traits beyond that: the answer is publicly visible ('real y visible') and the action is irreversible, a critical warning for a write tool. This is solid added value, though it omits any auth/account requirements.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The action and scope are front-loaded, followed immediately by the irreversibility warning and the confirmation precondition.

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 simple 3-param write tool with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the essential profile: what it does, that it is public, and that it is irreversible. Minor gaps remain around permissions and account selection.

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 67%; 'texto' and 'cuenta' are documented in the schema while 'pregunta_id' is not. The description only loosely echoes the 'texto confirmado' concept and adds no format or sourcing guidance, so it does not compensate for the gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (PUBLICA) and resource (respuesta a una pregunta de comprador) with clear scope ('real y visible'). An agent can distinguish it from the read-side sibling ml_preguntas, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides a real usage constraint: 'usar solo con el texto confirmado por el usuario', which implicitly tells the agent to require confirmation before calling. However, it names no alternative or when-not condition and does not point to ml_preguntas for reading/reviewing questions.

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