astrax_tarea_guardar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the value-type constraint (routes or short values, not long content), which is genuine behavioral context beyond the schema. However, for a mutation tool it omits overwrite/replace semantics, error behavior, and whether existing keys are preserved.

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?

Two tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed immediately by the one operative constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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 explained, and the simple two-parameter store is largely covered by the purpose plus value-type guidance. What's missing is mutation semantics (overwrite behavior) for a state-writing tool, leaving a modest gap.

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. The example 'pdf_generado=/ruta/carta.pdf' concretely maps to clave (the key name) and valor (the stored value), and the length constraint on valor adds meaning the bare schema lacks. It falls short only because it doesn't address value types beyond strings.

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 (Guarda) and resource (un dato clave de la tarea) with a concrete example, so an agent can tell it stores task key/value state rather than creating a task or checking status. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like astrax_tarea_crear or astrax_tarea_estado, so it stops short of a 5.

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 example and the constraint (save paths or short values, not long contents) imply when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance and no prerequisites or sequencing relative to astrax_tarea_crear/estado. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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