editar_invitacion

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it only touches what you send, leaving the rest unchanged, which is important behavioral context beyond annotations. It doesn't mention concurrency or error behavior, but given annotations cover safety, this is adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences with no waste. The key constraint (only touched what you send) is front-loaded, and the alternative usage is clearly stated. Perfectly structured.

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 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does not list all parameters but the important ones (tema, textos) are covered. The openWorldHint annotation suggests flexibility, so the description's guidance is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and constraints, though a fuller parameter list would be ideal.

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 mentions 'tema o los textos' which maps to multiple text parameters, but does not enumerate all 8 optional text fields. However, most parameter names are self-explanatory, and the description's partial compensation keeps it above baseline.

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 it edits an existing invitation's theme or texts, distinguishing it from creating a new invitation. The verb 'Cambia' and resource 'invitación existente' are specific.

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 explicitly says to use it instead of creating another invitation, which provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool (crear_invitacion) or mention exclusions for other edit tools.

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