create_aviso

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the default call creates NOTHING and only returns the payload, and that confirm=true is required to actually submit. It omits auth/permission requirements and any error or side-effect behavior for the real submission path.

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?

Front-loads the dry-run warning, which is the most important thing for an agent to know, and stays to a tight few sentences. No filler, though the IMPORTANT block could be marginally tighter.

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 13-parameter nested-object tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical dry-run and identity behaviors but leaves many parameters and the return payload shape unexplained. It is adequate to avoid accidental writes but not complete.

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 77%, so the schema already documents most parameters (kind, confirm, identity, streetCode, etc.). The description reinforces confirm and identity semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Crea un aviso/sugerencia') so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling create_aviso_from_photo, leaving the agent to infer which creation path to choose.

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?

Gives clear operational context: default is dry-run, real creation requires confirm=true, and identity comes from storage unless overridden. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when this tool is preferred over create_aviso_from_photo.

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