subir-foto

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 meaningful work: it discloses the accepted formats (JPG/PNG), a 5 MB size limit, the source field, and dry-run behavior when not applying. It omits whether an existing photo is overwritten and what authentication or profile state is required.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the resource and constraints front-loaded before the dry-run caveat. Slightly dense parenthetical for formats and size but nothing wasted.

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?

No annotations and no output schema mean the description must be self-sufficient; it covers inputs and the preview mode but not the default value, overwrite behavior, error cases, or what a successful preview returns. Adequate to call, not fully sufficient to predict results.

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% and the single parameter 'aplicar' is never named, but the phrase 'sin aplicar' conveys its semantics well enough for an agent to set it. The default when the parameter is omitted (0 required parameters) is left unspecified, which is the main gap.

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: it takes the photo at datos_personales.foto of the master profile and sets it as the profile picture. The resource (foto de perfil) is distinct from sibling upload tools like subir-cv, though the description never names or contrasts them 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?

'Sin aplicar solo muestra lo que haría' implies the preview/dry-run path exists, but the agent must infer it is the thing to call before committing. No guidance on when to prefer this over ver-mi-perfil or subir-cv, and no prerequisites (e.g. needing a master profile or active session).

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