wacta_save_cta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal field behaviors (e.g., 'selector (adopta botones existentes por CSS)' and 'capture (pedir datos antes de abrir WhatsApp)') but does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, whether the update is a merge or full replacement, or any side effects. This is partially transparent but leaves significant gaps.

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?

The description is a single but well-structured sentence that first states the action, then lists core fields, and ends with conditional visual fields. It is dense yet efficient, with every phrase contributing value, though the long parentheticals could slightly reduce readability.

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?

The tool has a nested object parameter and no output schema, so the description should ideally explain return values or error behavior. It covers the input fields and conditional behavior, but it omits any info about what happens after the save (e.g., response structure, confirmation, or update semantics), leaving the agent to infer these aspects.

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?

The schema only describes the parameter as 'Fila del CTA; requiere slug.' The description adds substantial meaning by enumerating core fields (slug, label, message, selector, capture, track, active) and visual fields with CTA Studio, giving the agent a clear understanding of accepted properties beyond the minimal 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?

The description states 'Crea o actualiza un CTA del Registro Único por su slug' which is a specific verb (create/update) and resource (CTA), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like list, delete, and analytics. It uniquely performs an upsert operation.

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?

It provides clear context by stating the operation is performed 'por su slug' and mentions a conditional usage scenario ('Con CTA Studio activo admite...'), which signals when extended fields are available. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or including exclusions.

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