Gestionar caso

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds real context beyond them: merge uses optimistic locking via expected_version, and delete requires re-typing the case_id in confirm. It does not state whether delete is reversible or what permissions are needed, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

There is no filler, but five distinct operations are crammed into one long run-on Spanish sentence, making it hard to scan for a single action. The primary 'create or update' purpose is front-loaded, which helps.

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 an 8-parameter, 5-action destructive tool with no output schema, the action semantics are covered well, but nothing is said about what a call returns (created case id? version number? merge conflict payload) or what a failed optimistic-lock check looks like — information an agent needs since there is no output schema to consult.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by explaining conditional applicability of parameters — which ones matter per action (sub_roles only for fork/delegate, source_case='all' only for merge, expected_version=0 means skip the lock). That is meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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 names the resource (case) and enumerates the concrete operations behind each action value: create, fork/delegate into sub-cases, merge with optimistic locking, delete. An agent can tell it apart from read-only siblings like osint_get_case_summary or osint_list_cases, though it never explicitly says so.

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?

Usage is implied by mapping each action value to its companion parameters (sub_roles for fork/delegate, source_case or 'all' for merge, confirm for delete). There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance and no statement of prerequisites or when not to pick a given action.

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