astrax_tarea_crear

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully disclose side effects: it writes the plan into a state file, surfaces the plan and permissions to the user, and requests exactly ONE confirmation. It omits residual behavior such as what happens if a plan already exists in the state file or whether it overwrites/locks subsequent steps.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the sequencing role ("PASO 1") leads, followed by the write behavior and then the per-parameter note. The line breaks and mixed indentation are slightly awkward but no sentence is wasted.

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 described, and the description covers the workflow position, the file side effect, the confirmation flow, and the permissions domain. Missing only edge-case behavior (existing state, failure handling) that an agent working alongside astrax_tarea_limpiar or astrax_tarea_estado might need.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates the valid permisos_requeridos values (pantalla, raton_teclado, portapapeles, terminal) and constrains pasos to be short, concrete, ordered items. Only "objetivo" is left undocumented, though its meaning is self-evident from its name.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Guarda el plan ... en el archivo de estado") and positions itself as "PASO 1 de toda petición multi-paso", so the agent knows this is the plan-initialization step of a task workflow. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the adjacent sibling astrax_tarea_guardar, which sounds like it could also persist task state.

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?

"PASO 1 de toda petición multi-paso" gives an explicit triggering condition: use this first whenever a request spans multiple steps. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. single-action requests should route straight to astrax_clic / astrax_tecla), so the exclusion side is left to inference.

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