register_device

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 discloses that this WRITES to the server (mutation), requires explicit human approval, and persists the returned idDispositivo as local state. It stops short of covering idempotency, behavior on re-registration, or failure modes.

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?

Single dense sentence that front-loads the action and endpoint before the constraints. Every clause earns its place, though the run-on structure packs three ideas into one sentence.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: write semantics, approval requirement, and the ordering constraint relative to avisos. Minor gaps remain around error handling and whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and 100% of the (empty) schema is covered, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related the description could usefully add.

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 (registrar), the target resource (dispositivo en el Ayuntamiento), the concrete endpoint (POST /dispositivos), and the side effect (guarda el idDispositivo). It also ties the tool to its downstream purpose ('necesario antes de crear o consultar avisos'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like create_aviso or get_identity.

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 an explicit prerequisite ('Necesario antes de crear o consultar avisos') and an explicit gating condition ('usar solo con OK humano explícito'). That is both when-to-use and when-not-to-use-without-approval guidance, which is rare and valuable.

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