Poner Portada

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the mutation ('Pone... como portada') and adds an important constraint ('fichero dentro del allowlist'). However, it does not disclose whether an existing cover is overwritten, what permissions are needed, or how errors are surfaced.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key constraint without filler. Every part earns its place.

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-string-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is serviceable but not fully complete. It gives the core action and the allowlist prerequisite, but leaves project identifier semantics and side effects unspecified, so an agent may need to infer conventions from sibling tools.

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 clarifies that 'imagen' is a local file within the allowlist and connects 'proyecto' to the project whose cover is being set. It does not explain the expected format of 'proyecto' (name vs. ID) or image path/file-type details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Pone') and names the resource ('una imagen local' as 'portada del proyecto'), so the operation is clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but none of the listed siblings handles cover images, so the purpose is still distinguishable.

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 context is clear: use this tool to set a project's cover image from a local file, and the parenthetical excludes files outside the allowlist. It does not explicitly provide alternatives or a 'when not to use' clause, but no sibling tool competes for this operation.

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