gerent365_update_employee_pin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that the PIN is changed, without mentioning side effects, permissions, reversibility, or any impact on kiosk operations. The mutation behavior is clear but no additional context is provided.

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 entire description is a single, efficient sentence in Spanish. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the description lacks usage context and behavioral details. It does not mention when to use it, what outcome to expect, or any operational impact. The absence of an output schema and annotations means the description should provide more context, but it does not.

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% for both parameters ('id' and 'pin'), so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema, giving the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Cambia' = changes), the specific resource ('PIN de fichaje (kiosko)'), and the target ('empleado'). It distinguishes this from the sibling 'update_employee' tool by focusing solely on the PIN.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or relationship to sibling tools like 'gerent365_update_employee' or 'gerent365_kiosko_validate'.

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