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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world). Beyond that, the description discloses the actual write mechanic: HTML is inserted immediately before `</body>`, and appended at the end when no `</body>` exists. That is real behavioral context an agent could not infer. It does not discuss permissions, version conflicts beyond the schema-documented base_version, or response shape.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the formatting constraint and the alternative tools. Minimal waste; the trailing alternatives sentence is load-bearing rather than filler.

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 no output schema, five params fully documented in the schema, and annotations carrying safety, the description covers the remaining burden: what gets written, where it lands, and which sibling to pick instead. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning on top: it clarifies contenido must be HTML because that is the stored format, and explains where that HTML lands relative to `</body>` — semantics the schema field text alone does not convey.

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 (agregar), resource (artefacto) and scope (AL FINAL, sin retipearlo), plus concrete examples of the growth patterns it serves. It explicitly names the two sibling tools it is not: patch_artifact and save_artifact.

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 explicit routing rules: use patch_artifact to change text that already exists, save_artifact to replace the whole artifact. Also enumerates positive cases (new section, extra row, log entry), so both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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