actualizar-perfil

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the dry-run return shape, the backup destination (~/.elempleo/respaldos/) on write, the destructive scope constrained to eliminar_ids, and the safety rule that seguridad_social data must never be assumed. That is exactly the mutation-risk context an agent needs.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the primary action and the dry-run default come first, followed by backup and deletion constraints. Slightly packed with clauses in a single block, but every sentence carries distinct operational information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return plan, backup behavior, deletion scope, and a data-handling rule. It is nearly complete, missing only per-section expectations for the enum values and how the returned plan is shaped structurally.

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 67%, with the enum for 'seccion' undocumented in the schema itself. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that agregar/aplicar is a confirm-then-save gate, that eliminar_ids is the sole deletion scope, and that seguridad_social must use supplied data — though it does not map the remaining enum sections.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Actualiza una sección de la hoja de vida desde el perfil maestro'), which implicitly distinguishes it from perfil-maestro siblings like guardar-perfil-maestro or ver-perfil-maestro. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so apart from that routing nuance the purpose is clear.

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?

Explicitly states the two modes: without 'aplicar' it returns the exact plan (antes → después) to show the user, and with aplicar=true it backs up and saves after user confirmation. This gives the agent the when-to-use dry-run vs. when-to-write condition rather than leaving it to inference.

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