poner_musica

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds that it sets background music and that url_embed is the embed link, which clarifies the input format. However, it does not disclose what happens to existing music, whether the change is reversible, or any side effects on the invitation. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action and then explains the key parameter. It is concise and free of filler. It could be slightly more structured by also explaining the other parameters, but for its length it is efficient.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It explains url_embed but leaves invitacion_id and titulo undocumented. It also does not mention any prerequisites, such as whether the invitation must exist or whether a connection is required. The agent can likely infer invitacion_id from context, but the description should be more explicit.

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 for the three parameters. It explains url_embed well, but it does not explain invitacion_id (though the name suggests it is the invitation ID) or titulo (title, with a default empty string). The description adds meaning only for one of three parameters, leaving the agent to infer the others from their names.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Pone música de fondo' (sets background music) and identifies the key parameter url_embed as the embed link (e.g., Spotify or YouTube). It is distinct from sibling tools, which are about connections, events, invitations, photos, and guests. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling that might also handle media or settings, though none appear to directly compete.

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 usage: it tells the agent that url_embed is the link to insert, with examples of Spotify or YouTube embeds. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites like having a connected account or an existing invitation. The context is clear enough for a simple action, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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