Marcar como solicitada

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the write is a persistent record that will be read back later via list_solicitudes. It doesn't clarify behavior on duplicate submissions or whether the call disappears from search results, but the annotation set carries most of the burden.

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?

Purpose and trigger conditions are front-loaded, and the Args block is compact. Slightly verbose in the notas explanation, but every line carries usable information and nothing is 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; the mutation semantics and parameter provenance are well covered. The only gap is whether marking affects the convocatoria's visibility in search_convocatorias, which is useful but not essential for calling the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for all three parameters: it tells the agent that 'id' comes from a search_convocatorias result (essential provenance), explains what belongs in 'notas', and gives the AAAA-MM-DD format plus the today default for 'fecha'. This is more than the schema conveys.

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 and resource ('Anota que el usuario ha solicitado una convocatoria') and frames the result as a registry entry that is later consulted with list_solicitudes, which distinguishes it from the read-side sibling. An agent can tell this is the write counterpart to the solicitudes listing without opening either 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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: call it when the user says they have requested, submitted, or delivered the application. It also names the downstream consumer (list_solicitudes). It does not state when not to use it versus discard, which keeps it from a 5.

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