connect_pedidosya[demo: deshabilitada] Connects PedidosYa for this business using the BYOA secure-form model. Primary: returns a secure link. Fallback: accepts an API token directly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiToken | No | Optional PedidosYa API token. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds behavioral detail beyond that by explaining the secure-form model and the primary/fallback flow (returning a secure link vs. accepting a token directly). This provides useful context without contradicting annotations.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with three short sentences that convey purpose, method, and fallback. There is no redundant phrasing, and the demo note is brief but informative.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how it works (BYOA secure-form), what it returns (secure link), and the fallback. Sibling differentiation and annotations fill any residual 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 100% for the single apiToken parameter, but the description adds contextual meaning by indicating it is used in the fallback mode, linking the parameter to the tool's behavior. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'optional token' description.
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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Connects PedidosYa for this business.' It differentiates from sibling connect_* tools by naming the platform (PedidosYa) and describes its primary and fallback modes.
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 description provides clear context: it is used to connect PedidosYa via the BYOA secure-form model, with a fallback to accept an API token. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the platform-specific naming makes the intended use obvious among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as caja_registrar_movimiento vs register_movement, get_payment_intent_status vs open_cobro_status, and adjust_stock vs stock_load. The distinctions are not immediately clear from names/descriptions, causing a high risk of misselection.
Naming is inconsistent: mixes English and Spanish (caja_*, emit_invoice, send_whatsapp_*), and uses different patterns (open_*, get_*, query_*, list_*, etc.). Some names like stock_load and bulk_price_update don't follow a clear verb_noun convention.
50 tools is excessive for most contexts, even for a broad ERP-like domain. Many are UI widgets (open_*) that add clutter and could be consolidated, making the tool set feel heavy and harder to navigate.
The tool set covers many core business functions (products, suppliers, customers, sales, invoicing, shipping, cash register, payments, integrations). However, there are noticeable gaps: purchase requests have only create (no list/update/delete), shipments cannot be updated/cancelled, and sales lack direct update/query by ID.