escribir_codigo_seguro

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool verifies the pre-existing structure and operates within a Sandbox, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits side effects (e.g., whether files are overwritten), permission requirements, and failure behavior, which matter for a mutation tool.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The action verb and primary resource are front-loaded, and the structural verification constraint is included without verbosity. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 three-parameter write tool, the description and schema cover the main invocation details. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what happens after invocation (e.g., return values, errors, or whether the write is irreversible). This missing execution context keeps it from being complete.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, mostly reinforcing the Sandbox and structure-verification context. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specific verb 'Escribe o actualiza' with a clear resource ('código dentro del Sandbox del proyecto') and adds a distinguishing constraint ('verificando la estructura previa'). The sibling tools are inspection/testing/log-analysis operations, so this write/update tool is clearly differentiated without opening schemas.

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 context (writing or updating code within the project Sandbox) but provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The sibling names make the intended use reasonably inferable, but the description itself does not state it.

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