set_active_courses

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, which is ambiguous on its own; the description resolves that by saying the write is to a local file and 'No modifica nada en el Campus'. It also discloses the effect of clear: true and the no-argument read path. Missing: any statement about what the call returns or whether repeated calls overwrite vs merge.

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 tight sentences: purpose and storage first, then the two modes, then the safety clarification. Every clause carries information an agent needs, and the 'no modifica nada en el Campus' reassurance is placed last where it matters.

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?

For a two-optional-parameter configuration tool with no output schema, the description covers storage, downstream effects, read mode, and deletion. The remaining gap is the return value when querying the current profile, which nothing else documents.

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 100%, and both parameters (clear, courses) are already documented there in equivalent wording. The description restates 'clear: true lo borra' and the omitted-courses behavior without adding format or edge-case detail (e.g. how names are matched, what happens above 30 items). Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 ('Guarda ... cuáles son las materias que la persona cursa este cuatrimestre') plus the storage location (local file) and the accepted identifiers (nombre o ID). It also names the two downstream consumers, get_deadlines and get_announcements, so an agent can place it precisely among the siblings.

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 the motivating condition (make get_deadlines/get_announcements faster by narrowing scope) and covers the two operating modes: no arguments = consult current profile, clear: true = delete. It does not state when an agent should *not* call it (e.g. when course names are unknown and list_courses should run first), which keeps it 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.