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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the text is stored for later reuse — useful framing — but says nothing about what happens on duplicate labels, whether the write is scoped to a brand/account, or what a successful save returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb+resource first, then a parenthetical of concrete examples, then the parameter recap. No filler. The only slight inefficiency is restating "category opcional", which the schema's required list already conveys.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers intent and the parameter roster but omits return/confirmation behavior and scoping. An agent could call it, but not confidently predict the effect or the response shape.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries real weight here. It names all three parameters and marks category as optional and label as "corta", but "corta" lacks the concrete 120-char bound, and content — the only required field — gets no explanation of what belongs in it versus label.

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?

"Guarda un texto nuevo para reutilizar al escribir publicaciones" states a specific verb (save) and resource (a reusable text snippet), with concrete examples (hashtags, CTA, signature, link). The word "nuevo" implicitly separates it from update_saved_text, but no sibling is named 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 purpose clause implies usage context (reusing snippets when writing posts), which is enough to know the general domain. However, it never states when to use this versus update_saved_text or list_saved_texts, nor any prerequisite such as needing an existing brand/account context.

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