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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: if the entry matches another name or an alias, they are merged ('se funden'). It does not say whether the merge is reversible or which fields are matched, which would have earned a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the merge behavior. Nothing is redundant and every clause carries 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 5-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the merge side-effect but leaves unclear which fields drive matching, what the merge does to conflicting values, and what the caller gets back. Adequate but with notable gaps.

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%, with 'name', 'means' and 'project' documented and 'kind'/'aliases' bare. The description only indirectly clarifies intent (a colloquial name), and the merge hint partially explains 'aliases', but it adds no detail on 'kind' or what 'means' is for. Baseline 3 applies given partial schema coverage.

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 gives a specific verb ('Apunta') and a concrete resource (a person, piece, or client of the project recorded by their colloquial name), with an illustrative example ('lo de pagos'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_gotcha or add_learning, though it never names an alternative sibling explicitly.

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 example ('cómo lo llaman') implies the situation: capturing an informal nickname mapped to a project entity. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when NOT to use it, and no pointer to a sibling such as set_place or add_brand_example for adjacent needs.

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