Registrar hueco

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

The description fully explains the tool's behavior beyond annotations. It specifies that the tool never duplicates, increments a counter and adds the source if the term exists, or creates it with counter 1 if new. This provides clear behavioral transparency. Annotations indicate it is not idempotent (idempotentHint: false) and not destructive (destructiveHint: false), and the description aligns with these traits.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the core action and behavior, and the second provides clear usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 required parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, its behavioral details (upsert logic), and precise usage instructions. It is complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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%, so all parameters are documented. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for each parameter (e.g., 'Kubernetes' for term, 'Google SWE II, Malaga' for source, 'Infraestructura' for category), which clarifies the expected format and granularity beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: recording that an offer asks for a missing skill. It uses specific verbs ('registra') and resources ('una oferta pide una skill que NO tengo'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'confirm_skill' (which likely confirms a skill) and 'list_gaps' (which lists gaps).

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 tells when to call the tool: once per missing skill per offer, including terms the user couldn't define. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context ('terminos que no sabria definir en una entrevista') implies it should be used for truly unknown skills. Sibling tool names like 'confirm_skill' and 'update_skill_level' suggest alternatives for existing skills, but this is not spelled out.

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