Crear publicación

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false; the description adds substantial context beyond that: the operation creates a REAL listing, clone mode copies title/category/attributes/photos/description (with an IP caution about only copying own content), and overriding title/price/stock is permitted. A user-confirmation requirement is stated. It does not describe failure modes or what the response returns, but the mutation semantics are well disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the high-stakes nature of the operation, then the clone mechanic, then the safety constraint. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 10-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the two operation modes (fresh create vs clone-and-override) and the confirmation requirement. It leaves the required-parameter logic partly to the schema descriptions, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 60%, so several params (tipo, cuenta, condicion, descripcion) rely on the schema alone. The description nonetheless adds real meaning: it explains what copiar_de clones and that titulo/precio/stock can override the cloned values, and the schema itself already flags which fields are 'Obligatorio si no hay copiar_de'.

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?

Starts with an emphatic specific verb+resource ('CREA una publicación real en la tienda'), making clear this is a genuine write to the listing store, not a draft. The clone mode is spelled out precisely ('clona una publicación existente... permite pisar título/precio/stock'), so an agent can tell it apart from the sibling ml_actualizar_publicacion.

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?

Gives an explicit usage constraint ('Usar solo con confirmación explícita del usuario') and a positive use case ('ideal para duplicar entre tus propias cuentas'). It does not name an alternative tool for the case where the user wants to modify an existing listing, which would have made routing unambiguous.

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