conectar_cuenta

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains a non-trivial interactive flow: it returns a link and code, the user must open the link and approve, and a successor call is required. This adds real behavioral context on top of readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: the purpose is first, the returned artifacts and user action are second, and the next step is last. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the output (link and code) and the required follow-up. It is slightly incomplete only because it leaves the single parameter unexplained.

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% and the description never mentions 'nombre_del_agente'. The agent is left with only the schema title and default to infer meaning, so the description does not compensate for the missing parameter 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 opens with the specific action 'Conecta (o renueva) el acceso a la cuenta InvitaAI del usuario', clearly identifying a verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool completar_conexion by framing this as the initiation step that returns a link and code.

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?

It gives clear context: use this to connect or renew access, and it explicitly instructs 'Después llama completar_conexion' as the follow-up. It does not mention exclusions or when to prefer estado_conexion, so it stops short of a full 5.

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