astrax_tarea_autorizar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical behavioral gate: user confirmation must precede the call. However, it never explains what permissions are actually granted, their scope, or whether the grant is reversible/persistent beyond the session.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed immediately by the safety-critical constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.

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 need not be explained, and the crucial confirmation behavior is covered. But with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, an agent still lacks guidance on what 'permisos_extra' does and what granting entails.

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% and neither parameter is addressed in the description. 'permisos_extra' is entirely undocumented, and 'confirmacion_usuario' is only obliquely implied by the confirmation instruction rather than explained as a required boolean gate.

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 ('Concede los permisos de la tarea durante la sesión'), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like astrax_tarea_crear or astrax_tarea_estado. The scope of 'permisos' remains somewhat abstract, but the action is clear.

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?

Explicitly states when to call (only after showing the plan and receiving an explicit 'sí') and adds a hard prohibition ('Nunca sin preguntarle'). This is a textbook when/when-not instruction with no ambiguity.

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