manage_faq

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

The description explicitly marks the tool as a mutation and requires confirmation ('[mutation] (requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true para ejecutar)'). This provides key behavioral context beyond the schema. No other side effects or permissions are mentioned, but the mutation flag and confirmation are adequate.

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 short sentences: purpose, use case, behavioral note. No redundant information. Concise and front-loaded with the core action.

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 purpose, use case, mutation nature, confirmation, and source of IDs. It does not mention batch vs. individual operation outcomes or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, it is largely 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?

All parameters are covered in the schema (100%), and the description adds value: it notes that faq_ids can be obtained from get_product_qa_faqs and reiterates that confirm=true is required for execution. This enhances understanding without redundancy.

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 that the tool manages FAQs by unpublishing, republishing, or deleting them, and specifies the source plugin. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like unpublish_faq, republish_faq, and delete_faq, which offer single actions.

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 suggests using the tool for outdated content ('gestionar contenido que ya no es relevante') and notes the need for confirmation. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this combined tool versus the individual sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites like getting FAQ IDs from get_product_qa_faqs.

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