create_aviso_from_photo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that preview does not send, that sending requires confirm + human_confirmed + preview_token, that missing tipo creates nothing, and that the photo travels as a data URL. These are critical behavioral traits for a mutation tool that would otherwise be invisible.

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?

Dense and telegraphic but appropriately sized for a 13-parameter, multi-phase tool; the workflow phases and send gate are front-loaded. It is information-rich rather than padded, though the compressed phrasing costs some 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?

For a complex mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the phased workflow, the send gate, and the upload alternatives thoroughly. Minor gaps remain on some parameters and nothing is said about the preview response shape beyond preview_token.

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 coverage is 69%, and the description adds genuine meaning beyond it: file_id as the preferred remote route, image_path restricted to stdio/CLI, confirm requiring the token pair, and the consequence of omitting tipo. A few params (lat/lon/address/identity) are only covered by the schema, keeping it from a 5.

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+resource ('Aviso desde una FOTO en fases') and immediately frames the two-phase workflow (preview vs send). It does not explicitly name the sibling create_aviso to differentiate the photo-based variant from it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly names the preferred upload route (PUT /upload + file_id) versus the stdio-only alternative (image_path), and spells out the two phases: 'Sin tipo → sugiere', 'Con todo → preview + preview_token SIN enviar'. The send requirements are enumerated with the three mandatory fields. Nothing about when to use it versus alternatives is left to inference.

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