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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing exactly what is destroyed: 'borra las tareas que ese cierre había creado', identifying the side effect (task deletion) that annotations cannot express. It still omits whether the deletion is recoverable or requires elevated permissions.

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 front-loaded sentence: the action leads, followed by the app-parity note and the concrete side effect. No filler or redundancy.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece—the task-deletion side effect—while annotations carry the safety hint. Minor gaps remain around reversibility and multi-day scope, but nothing essential to calling 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both the date format and the workspace_id semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying the date selects the day to reopen, which is the baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (reabre), resource (la nota diaria) and scope (de una fecha), and frames itself as the inverse of a close operation ('deshace el cierre'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the close_day_note sibling. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'deshace el cierre' implies the use case (undoing a closed day), but it never explicitly names close_day_note as the alternative nor states when-not to use it. Usage is inferable from context rather than stated, which lands at the minimum-viable level.

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