create_aviso_from_photo

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the preview-then-send gating, that nothing is sent without all three flags, that the photo travels as base64 in the send call, and the need for human confirmation. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations would otherwise supply.

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 front-loaded with the workflow phases and free of filler; each clause carries routing or gating information. The compressed style costs some readability but wastes nothing.

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 14-parameter, nested-object tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operationally critical path (upload, preview, confirmed send) thoroughly. Minor gaps remain on peripheral params (lat/lon override, identity override, category_hint), which the schema partially covers.

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 57%, and the description adds real meaning: it explains file_id's preferred-remote role, image_path's stdio-only constraint, the send-gating semantics of confirm/human_confirmed/preview_token, and that image_base64 travels in the send. It does not explain lat/lon/address/identity/category_hint, which remain schema-documented only.

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') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling create_aviso by scoping to photo-based creation. The phased nature of the operation is named up front.

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 routing: preferred upload path (PUT /upload + file_id) vs stdio (image_path local), what happens without service_id/category_id (suggests, need_category), what happens with everything (preview, no send), and the exact conditions to actually send (confirm + human_confirmed + preview_token after human 'yes'). This is unusually complete when-to-use guidance.

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