postular-a-oferta

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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses that it is a single-shot submission with no retry logic and a strict confirmation gate. It still omits what an agent most needs for a mutation with real-world consequences: irreversibility/withdrawal, duplicate-application behavior, and what happens on partial 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the hard confirmation constraint. Every sentence carries a rule; no filler.

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 an irreversible, annotation-free mutation with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation gate and retry ban but says nothing about failure modes or what the call returns. It is adequate but leaves real gaps for a consequential write operation.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the confirmacion format and the optional respuestas array. The description reinforces the exact 'POSTULAR <id>' confirmation and that answers are optional but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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: it submits the application together with questionnaire answers in a single request. An agent can distinguish it from preparers like proponer-respuestas or readers like mis-postulaciones from the description alone, though no sibling is named 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?

Preconditions are clear (user must have explicitly approved THAT offer, one offer per call, no automatic retries), which implies when to call it. However, it never names alternatives or points to the preparatory tools (preguntas-de-postulacion, proponer-respuestas) that must precede it.

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