Guardar analisis de oferta

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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by specifying that only the analysis is replaced while status and notes are preserved. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand what mutations occur.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence clarifies behavior. Perfectly concise.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, idempotency, and preservation semantics. It lacks mention of return values or error cases, but for a save/update tool it is fairly 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%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds some context for the 'markdown' parameter (expects six-point template), but does not add value for other parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 creates or updates an offer file with its analysis, and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating that status and interview notes are preserved. The verb 'crea o actualiza' and resource 'archivo de una oferta con su analisis' are specific.

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 when to use the tool (to save/update analysis) and when not to (for status/notes updates, use sibling tools). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like 'set_offer_status' or 'add_offer_note', so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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