Graduar skill

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

The description reveals side effects: removes from radar, adds to profile, discards the original offer. Annotations only provide idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds significant behavioral context not covered by annotations.

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 two sentences, dense with information, front-loaded with the key concept, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage constraints, parameter nuances, and behavioral effects. It is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds value: it explains that 'term' must match the radar exactly, that 'evidence' is a note and the offer is not preserved, and that 'category' is optional only if missing from radar.

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 the verb 'confirma' (confirms) and the resource 'skill', and explains that it moves a skill from the radar to the profile. It distinguishes itself as the ONLY path from gap to profile, differentiating it from siblings.

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 explicitly says to use only when the user confirms acquisition and never on own initiative. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, but the context and the phrase 'UNICO camino' imply exclusivity.

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