Editar extensión

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds limited behavioral info beyond stating it modifies fields. The advice to consult first adds safety context, but no details on side effects, permissions, or invalid input handling.

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 efficient sentences in Spanish, front-loaded with purpose and example fields, followed by a crucial usage tip. No wasted words.

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 update tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers input semantics and prerequisite action (consult before). It doesn't describe return values or error handling, but the missing info is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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%, but the description adds value by clarifying that 'fields' should contain only the fields to change, with examples (name, email, dnd, cw), which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb 'Modifica' (modifies) with the resource 'campos de una extensión' (fields of an extension) and lists example fields. It differentiates from the sibling tool pbx_get_extension by advising to consult it first, clarifying its update purpose.

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 instructs to pass only fields to change in 'fields' and to consult pbx_get_extension first, providing clear context on when to use. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among other update tools but is adequate.

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