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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the upsert nature ('guarda o actualiza') and project scoping, but does not say what happens to fields omitted on update, whether an existing format is overwritten, or what distinguishes a create from an update beyond the id parameter.

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. The second sentence repeats 'proyecto' twice in a slightly redundant way, but every clause carries a real scoping constraint, so there is little waste.

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 an 8-parameter upsert with no output schema, the description covers purpose and scope but leaves meaningful gaps: only 'project' is required, so it never explains what a call with just a project creates, nor what an update with partial fields does. Adequate but not complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 75% schema description coverage across 8 parameters, the schema already documents id, when, rules, project, medium and structure. The description only echoes two of them ('estructura y reglas') and adds the semantic point that 'project' means project scope rather than personal, which is a modest gain over the schema.

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 states a specific verb pair ('guarda o actualiza') plus a specific resource ('formato de escritura'), and clarifies the artifact is the structure+rules of a writing format. It partially differentiates from neighbours by excluding personal scope, though it never names a sibling such as save_output or set_brand to contrast with.

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?

It gives a clear scope exclusion ('no vale para lo personal ni para otro proyecto'), which tells the agent when NOT to use it. However, it gives no positive trigger conditions and no routing to alternatives for personal or cross-project formats, leaving the agent to infer where those belong.

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