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 the phased preview-first behavior, that preview does NOT send, and that sending requires the triple of confirm:true + human_confirmed:true + preview_token after a human 'sí'. This safety-critical gate is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Extremely dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then preferred path, then each state transition, ending on the send gate. Every clause carries a distinct operational rule with no filler, appropriate for a two-phase tool.

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-param, nested-object, two-phase tool with no output schema, the description covers the decision flow and return states (need_category, error, preview+token) well. Minor gap: a few parameters are left entirely to the schema, and the identity override is only documented there.

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 64%, and the description adds real meaning beyond it: file_id vs image_path selection logic, categoria's fallback to suggestions, and the coupling of confirm with preview_token/human_confirmed. It does not explain lat/lon/fuente/identity/image_base64, leaving those to the schema.

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+scope: creates an aviso from a FOTO, and notes it works in phases. The 'desde una FOTO' framing implicitly separates it from the sibling create_aviso, but it never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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 routes between the preferred remote path (PUT /upload then file_id) and the stdio path (local image_path), and gives the conditional branches for missing categoria, missing address/coords (route to geocode), and the ready-to-preview case. The when-to-use logic is fully spelled out.

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