create_aviso

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles the most consequential fact: the default call creates NOTHING and only echoes the fields that would be sent, while confirm=true actually submits. It also discloses that the stored email is used unless 'identity' overrides it. It omits permissions/error behavior and whether the published aviso is publicly visible, keeping it short of a 5.

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-loaded with the highest-risk fact (the dry-run default) before any other detail, and every sentence carries information. Slightly repetitive in restating confirm=false twice across the text, but no real waste.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral contract: what a default call returns and how to actually create. It does not touch image_path or the tipo code list, but those are covered by the schema.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents confirm, identity, tipo, address, lat/lon, and image_path. The description reinforces the confirm and identity semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Crea un aviso'), so the agent immediately knows this is the notice-creation tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling create_aviso_from_photo, so sibling disambiguation is left to inference.

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 explicit when/when-not guidance: default is dry-run (confirm=false) and real creation requires confirm=true. What it lacks is routing guidance versus the alternative sibling create_aviso_from_photo for photo-based notices.

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