republish_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 only labels the tool as '[mutation]', indicating state modification, but fails to disclose permissions, side effects (e.g., making FAQs visible), rate limits, or return behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single efficient sentence that clearly states the purpose and includes the mutation indicator. No redundant words; every part adds value.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., updated FAQs, success message) or any post-republish state. This leaves the agent uncertain about the outcome, making it incomplete for a simple mutation tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for 'faq_ids' (IDs of FAQs to republish). The description adds the nuance that it can republish 'una o varias' (one or several) FAQs, which goes beyond the schema by clarifying multiplicity.

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 verb 'Republicar' (republish) and the resource 'FAQ', with the qualifier 'previamente despublicadas' distinguishing it from publishing new FAQs or unpublishing. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like 'publish_question_as_faq' and 'unpublish_faq'.

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 implies when to use (for republishing previously unpublished FAQs), but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if FAQs are already published) or mention alternative tools. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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