fijar_color

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful non-obvious context: RGB components are normalized to 0–1 and the color affects captures/identification. However, it does not disclose whether the change is persistent, whether the named shape must already exist, or whether it overrides previous colors.

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 short sentences with the main action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence adds a useful example but is slightly more elaborate than strictly necessary, so it is concise but not maximally lean.

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 simple set-color operation, the description is close to sufficient: action, parameter range, and purpose are present. Missing are explicit target resolution (what 'nombre' refers to), preconditions such as the object existing, and side-effect/return behavior; the output schema reduces the need for return documentation.

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 phrase 'Componentes de 0 a 1' adds a critical constraint to r/g/b that the schema does not provide (schema description coverage is 0%). It leaves the 'nombre' parameter unexplained and does not explicitly map components to r/g/b, though the schema titles partially cover that.

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 concrete action ('Pinta una forma') and the resource ('forma'), and the tool name 'fijar_color' plus the sibling set of fijar_* tools make it distinguishable as the color-setter among position/orientation setters. It does not explicitly say 'sets the color of the object/shape named by nombre', so the resource is slightly vague.

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?

Provides a clear usage context: color is functional for distinguishing objects in a capture, not merely aesthetic. This implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to an alternative tool.

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