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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is consistent with discarding a pending action. The description adds the semantic context that the user declined, but does not say what happens to the discarded action, whether it is reversible, or whether the pending code becomes invalid.

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 short sentence with the trigger condition front-loaded and zero filler. Every element earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to convey intent and trigger. It does so adequately for a one-parameter tool, though the relationship to odoo_confirm could be made explicit.

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 100% and the single 'code' parameter is already documented as the pending action's identifier. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb (descarta) and resource (acción pendiente de confirmación), making the operation unmistakable. It does not name the sibling odoo_confirm, so the sibling differentiation is only implicit via the 'user said no' condition.

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 parenthetical 'el usuario ha dicho que no' gives an explicit triggering condition for when to call this tool rather than confirm. It stops short of naming odoo_confirm as the alternative, so no explicit exclusion is provided.

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