cuba_archivo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose key traits: append-only, SHA-256 hash chain, and UPDATE/DELETE blocked at the PostgreSQL trigger level. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but it gives useful tamper-evidence context beyond the schema.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the tool's core property. It wastes no words, though it could have used one clause to name the actions.

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 schema fully describes the four parameters and action enum, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description explains the audit-log guarantees but omits what each action returns and any permission or operational constraints, leaving it only minimally complete for a multi-action tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the enum actions, payload, event_action, and limit are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 what the resource is (a tamper-evident audit log) but not what the tool actually does as a command. It does not mention the append/verify/tail operations, so an agent must open the schema to learn the tool's verbs, and it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling memory_archivo.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_archivo or the other cuba/memory siblings. The description gives no conditions, prerequisites, or routing advice.

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