agregar_fotos_galeria

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be non-destructive. The description adds the specific detail that it does not remove existing photos, providing concrete context beyond the annotation. This is useful for an agent to understand the exact scope of side effects, though it does not cover other potential behaviors like authentication or error conditions.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Agrega fotos') and immediately clarifies the key non-destructive behavior. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, the description provides the core behavior and a key constraint. However, openWorldHint=true suggests there may be side effects (e.g., network calls) that are not disclosed. It also does not mention behavior for invalid inputs or what happens if the invitation ID does not exist, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It mentions 'fotos' and 'galería', which loosely map to 'urls' and 'invitacion_id', but does not explicitly state which parameter is which or provide details about expected formats. The agent must infer that 'urls' are the photo URLs and 'invitacion_id' identifies the gallery. This is insufficient given the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the verb 'agrega' (adds) and the resource 'fotos a la galería' (photos to gallery), making the tool's primary action unambiguous. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from destructive operations by noting 'sin quitar las que ya estaban' (without removing existing ones), which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'cambiar_foto_portada'.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you want to add photos to a gallery) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It provides a hint about non-destructive behavior, but does not state 'use this instead of X' or give conditions for choosing between this and sibling tools like 'buscar_fotos'.

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