publish_question_as_faq

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It includes '[mutation]' to indicate data modification, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing FAQs), permissions needed, or idempotency. For a simple single-param tool, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the action. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could enhance readability.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, simple action), the description covers the purpose and usage context adequately. It could mention return values or error conditions, but the lack of output schema and straightforward operation make it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a description for question_id that already explains its origin ('obtener de get_product_qa_questions'). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 (publicar manualmente una pregunta) and the resource (como FAQ en tu tienda online). It distinguishes itself from siblings like manage_faq and republish_faq by specifying it is for publishing questions as new FAQs, particularly those not automatically detected. The [mutation] tag reinforces the write operation.

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 on when to use: 'promover preguntas importantes que no fueron detectadas automaticamente'. It implies use when auto-detection fails, but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives (e.g., if the question is already an FAQ). Still, it offers clear guidance for its intended use case.

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