create_aviso

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 a good job disclosing the critical mutation gate: by default it is DRY-RUN and only returns the payload without creating anything, and confirm=true is required to actually send. It also notes that the saved identity is used unless overridden. It still omits auth requirements, rate limits, and error behavior, keeping it from 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?

Three short sentences front-load the core purpose and then immediately emphasize the critical dry-run caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given 9 parameters, a nested identity object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the dry-run default and identity handling. However, it does not explain what a successful real creation returns, error behavior, or how the many required fields relate to sibling listing tools, leaving meaningful gaps for the agent.

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 all parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description repeats the confirm and identity semantics but adds no new syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Crea un aviso') so an agent immediately understands it creates a notice report. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling create_aviso_from_photo, which is a clear alternative for creating a report from a photo, so it falls 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?

It gives invocation guidance by explaining the dry-run default and that confirm=true is needed to actually create, which implies usage context. However, it never says when to choose this tool over alternatives like create_aviso_from_photo, leaving tool selection to inference.

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