agregar_transformador

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and says nothing: it does not disclose whether the transformer is added to a workspace, whether validation occurs, whether it is rejected on duplicate names, or whether defaults (delta/wye) are applied silently. 'Update/mutate' implications are only inferable from the verb.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded and free of waste, but the brevity is under-specification rather than discipline given the tool's complexity.

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?

An 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage leaves the agent without enough to call it correctly. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the input contract and the professional-sibling choice remain unresolved.

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 0% across 8 parameters, and the description mentions no parameter at all. Required fields like kva, kv_primario, bus_primario and the delta/wye defaults are left entirely undocumented; the description does not compensate for the coverage gap in any way.

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 (agrega) and resource (transformador) with two qualifiers: three-phase and two-winding. This distinguishes it from a generic element-adder, but it does not differentiate it from the sibling 'agregar_transformador_profesional', which is the most important ambiguity an agent faces here.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of the near-identical sibling 'agregar_transformador_profesional', whose existence is exactly what an agent needs resolved before choosing. The description gives no context on prerequisites (e.g. needing an active workspace or defined buses).

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