Escribir Guion

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the destructive nature, two-step confirmation requirement, atomic write mechanism, automatic backup, and abort behavior if the project is open in STARC. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core destructive purpose appears first, followed by load-bearing safety details. Every sentence earns its place and there is no 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 the destructive nature and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the critical aspects: preview behavior, confirmation requirement, atomicity, backup, and STARC lock. It omits minor details like supported formats or whether 'serie' is option option, but these are inferable from defaults and the schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'preview' and 'confirmar' and implies that 'source' contains the full script. However, it does not explain 'formato' or 'serie', leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 title 'Escribir Guion' and description 'ESCRIBE (destructiva) — reemplaza el guion completo' clearly state the action: overwrite the full script. It explicitly marks the operation as destructive and distinguishes it from partial edits like editar_escena.

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 gives explicit conditions: use preview=true to receive a report and prevent writing, and write only with preview=false and confirmar=true. It does not explicitly name alternatives like editar_escena for partial edits, so it misses the 'when-not' branch that would warrant a 5.

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