Escribir Tratamiento

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'ESCRIBE' (writes), but does not disclose whether the write is destructive, whether it overwrites existing content, whether 'confirmar' is required to commit, or what the output schema contains. The presence of a 'preview' parameter and a 'confirmar' parameter suggests a two-phase write, but the description does not explain this behavior.

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 extremely short, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the main action but omits essential context. A single sentence can be a 5 if it carries full meaning; here it does not.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the write semantics, the role of 'preview' and 'confirmar', or the relationship to sibling write tools. The output schema exists but the description does not clarify what the tool returns or when it is safe to call.

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 for the four parameters. It does not explain 'proyecto', 'texto', 'preview', or 'confirmar' beyond their names. The description adds no meaning about how 'preview' or 'confirmar' affect the write operation, leaving the agent to guess.

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 description states a clear verb ('ESCRIBE') and resource ('el tratamiento del proyecto'), so an agent can tell it writes the treatment document. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like escribir_guion or escribir_sinopsis, which are also write operations on project documents. The name and title are nearly identical to the description, adding little differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus escribir_guion, escribir_sinopsis, or editar_escena. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the project must exist or whether a snapshot is needed before writing. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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