guardar-perfil-maestro

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses the default write path, copies of foto/CV as side effects, the no-overwrite default, the sobrescribir:true escape hatch, and the backup taken on overwrite. That is exactly the destructive-behavior 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?

Four dense sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler; the parenthetical default path slightly interrupts flow but is not wasteful.

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?

Covers side effects, overwrite policy, and the approval gate for a mutation tool with no output schema. The remaining gap is that it references an 'esquema estándar' without saying how the agent should obtain or verify that schema before building the nested perfil object.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining the overwrite-with-backup semantics of sobrescribir and the default location of perfil. It does not clarify the shape of the nested perfil object.

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 pair (validate + save) on a specific resource (perfil maestro) and names the default destination file. This is clearly the persistence step, distinguishable from construir-perfil-maestro and ver-perfil-maestro in the sibling list.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: 'Llamar solo después de que el usuario apruebe el contenido', which effectively tells the agent when not to call it. No sibling alternatives are named, so it falls short of the top score.

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