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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key non-obvious behavior: logs are irreversible ("no se pueden borrar"), the response contains a link chip, and shared-folder creation transfers ownership to the folder owner (editor role or higher). It stops short of covering failure modes such as duplicate titles or the authentication/permission errors a write call can raise.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with purpose and examples, then pre-conditions, return value, and folder semantics in a logical order. Every clause carries information, though the chip syntax and nested parentheticals make it slightly heavy to parse.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, return value, prerequisites, and folder ownership — the pieces an agent most needs. It does not address error/conflict behavior if a similarly named log already exists.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks — what firstLine accomplishes in workflow terms, and the shared-folder ownership consequence of folderId, which is not stated in the schema's folderId text. The description and agent params are left entirely to the schema, which documents them well.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Crea una bitácora nueva") and immediately grounds it with concrete examples of scoping ("una por proyecto, servidor o sistema: 'mi-app.es — despliegues'"), which distinguishes it from siblings like log_append or log_get.

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?

Gives an explicit pre-condition workflow ("comprueba antes con logs_list que no exista una adecuada") and names the exact companions needed for downstream steps (log_folders_list for folderId, notes_update for linking the returned chip). An agent knows both what to do before and after calling this tool.

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