answer_question

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. It states the refusal condition (TRENDYOL_ALLOW_WRITES=true), the public visibility, the character length requirement, and the once-only constraint. It lacks specifics on error handling or reversal, but these are important behavioral traits that are clearly covered.

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 well-structured: a clear purpose line, then constraints, then argument definitions. It is not overly long and each sentence contributes value. The 'WRITE:' prefix is a helpful signal. Minor inefficiency: the args section could be more concise, but overall it's effective.

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 essential context: how to obtain question_id, why the answer is sensitive (public display), and the constraints (length, once-only). An output schema exists, which may cover return details, so its absence in the description is acceptable. For a simple write tool with two parameters, this is fairly complete.

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 explain the parameters. It does: question_id is sourced from get_customer_questions, and text must be 10-2000 characters. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type declarations, though it doesn't provide full validation rules or examples.

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 the action: 'publish an answer to a customer question on Trendyol'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'WRITE:' prefix distinguishes it from read-only siblings. The tool is clearly distinct from get_products, get_orders, get_customer_questions (which reads), update_price_and_stock (updates product), and get_claims.

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 context (answer is public, 10-2000 chars, answered only once) and mentions the question_id comes from get_customer_questions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so an agent must infer the selection criteria.

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