postular-a-oferta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the destructive/irreversible nature implicitly via the confirmation gate, forbids retries and batch calls. It stops short of describing outcome on failure or duplicate applications, but the key behavioral constraints are surfaced.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the actionable constraint (confirmation format) front-loaded after the purpose statement.

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 4-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical safety gate, single-shot semantics and retry prohibition. Minor gaps remain around failure handling, but overall adequate for correct invocation.

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 75% and already documents nota, adjunto_id and confirmacion. The description adds real value by specifying the exact literal format 'POSTULAR <id>' and tying it to the specific offer id, reinforcing the cross-parameter constraint with the schema-documented confirmacion param.

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+resource ('Envía la postulación') so the agent knows this submits an application, which no other sibling does. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like 'mis-postulaciones' or 'responder-cuestionario', but the mutating, terminal action is unambiguous.

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 explicit conditions: requires user's explicit confirmation for THAT specific offer, one offer at a time, no automatic retries. This is clear guidance on when and how to call it, though it doesn't mention alternatives for gathering questions/answers before applying.

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