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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses three things annotations cannot: updates are partial (unchanged fields are preserved), saving the body constitutes the gestoría's approval of wording, and the call returns the saved settings. It does not explain why the tool is flagged destructive, which is the one open question an agent might have.

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 dense sentence with an inline placeholder list, front-loaded with the account scope and the three actions. The placeholder parenthetical is long but earns its place; nothing is redundant boilerplate.

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 4-param, non-required, partial-update mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, per-field behavior, template syntax, approval semantics and the return payload. The main omission is any note on whether prior settings are recoverable after a change.

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 only 25% (only 'dias' is documented), so the description carries real weight. It enumerates the eight supported template placeholders for asunto/cuerpo and clarifies the semantics of passing a subset of fields, adding meaning well beyond the bare 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?

Names a specific verb set (switch on/off, set days, change subject/body) on a specific resource (quarter-close reminders for a gestoría account). It is reasonably distinct from gestoria_cierre_vista_previa and gestoria_cierre_config, though it never names those siblings to draw the line 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?

"Only the fields you pass change" and "For a gestoría account" establish scope and partial-update semantics, which is real usage guidance. However, it never states when to use this instead of reading via gestoria_cierre_config or previewing via gestoria_cierre_vista_previa, so the routing decision is left implied.

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