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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "Solo cambia lo enviado" is a genuinely useful disclosure that omitted fields are left untouched, but nothing is said about permissions, whether changing status or notify has side effects (e.g., sending a notification or triggering status transition rules), or whether changes can be reverted.

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 tight sentence with the mutation verb and partial-update constraint front-loaded, followed by the field list. Nothing is wasted and no filler is present.

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 eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out the required id semantics, the folderId parameter entirely, and the effects of notify and status changes. It communicates the partial-update idea but is not sufficient to call the tool confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. It lists six updatable fields but omits folderId (which exists in the schema) and never says id is required, nor does it explain accepted formats for dueDate/nextActionDate or that passing null clears them.

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?

"Actualiza un expediente (parcial)" states a specific verb and resource and clarifies the operation is a partial update. The enumerated field list further pins down what kind of update it is, distinguishing it from expedients_create or expedients_get. It does not name a sibling or alternative, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this rather than expedients_create, expedient_line_add, or other update tools, and no prerequisites (permissions, whether the expedient must be open) are mentioned. The partial-update note implies usage but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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