enaho_actualizar_catalogo

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation rewrites the local catalog, is extremely slow, returns a diff, and keeps a backup so a failed crawl doesn't leave the server without a catalog. This clearly discloses side effects and failure safety, meeting the bar for high transparency.

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 description is extremely concise: three short sentences that front-load the primary action, then provide a performance warning, usage guidance, and return/backup behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail the diff structure, but it does mention the diff and the backup mechanism. It covers failure safety and performance, which are essential for a mutation tool. However, it omits any mention of how `anio_min`/`anio_max` affect the update, a gap that matters for full completeness.

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 only 33% (only `encuestas` has a description). The description adds context for `encuestas` (always filter with it) but offers no explanation for `anio_min` and `anio_max`, which remain undocumented beyond their names and value ranges. The description fails to compensate for the two missing parameter descriptions.

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 opens with 'Recorre el portal del INEI y reescribe el catalogo local', which clearly states a specific verb ('Recorre/reescribe') and resource (the INEI portal and local catalog). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listar_encuestas or estado_catalogo, which query or display catalog data rather than updating it.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance: it warns that this is the slowest operation and instructs to always narrow with `encuestas` unless the user explicitly asks for the full catalog. It implies when not to use it (e.g., for quick catalog reading) but does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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