subir-foto

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses validation limits (JPG/PNG/GIF, max 3 MB) and a dry-run mode that is non-destructive. It omits whether an existing photo is overwritten, what permissions or session state are required, and what happens on validation failure.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the action, target, constraints, and dry-run caveat; no filler or redundancy.

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 input constraints and preview behavior but leaves the agent guessing about overwrite semantics, required session/profile state, and the success response.

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 0%, so the description must carry the single parameter. 'Sin aplicar solo muestra lo que haría' effectively documents the 'aplicar' boolean as a preview/commit switch, but it never states the default value or the semantics of explicitly setting it to true.

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 ('Sube') plus the exact resource and source field ('la foto indicada en datos_personales.foto del perfil maestro'), and adds format/size constraints. This clearly separates it from subir-cv by resource type, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 second clause explains that without 'aplicar' the tool only previews, which implies the safe-vs-commit usage pattern. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (logged-in session, existing master profile) and no reference to the alternative 'subir-cv'.

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