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 does well: it surfaces the non-obvious dry-run default, what is returned without confirm, the deviceId precondition, and identity override behavior. It omits permanence/visibility of the created aviso and any rate or permission limits.

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 dense sentences, zero filler, and the most important gotcha (dry-run default) is flagged up front with 'IMPORTANTE'. Every clause conveys actionable information.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with a nested identity object and no output schema, the description covers the critical call-correctly concerns (dry-run, confirm, deviceId, identity). It could say more about what a successful real submission returns or does.

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 100%, so all nine parameters including confirm, identity, and image_paths are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces confirm/identity semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Crea un aviso') and makes the write-vs-dry-run semantics explicit. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling create_aviso_from_photo, leaving the agent to infer which creation path applies.

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 conditions: default is dry-run, confirm=true is required to actually submit, and a registered deviceId is a precondition. It never states when to prefer this tool over create_aviso_from_photo, so alternatives remain unaddressed.

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