agregar_transformador_profesional

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that missing professional fields are filled with silent defaults, which is an important side effect. It does not, however, describe required inputs, persistence behavior, validation, or what happens if the transformer already exists.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and directly states the tool's behavior, though its terseness borders on under-specification for a 22-parameter creation 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 complex 22-parameter creation tool with 8 required fields, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, one sentence is insufficient. It omits required parameters, defaulting consequences, and any modeling impact of silently defaulted %Z, X/R, losses, or taps.

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 22 parameters. The description mentions only four field groups (%Z, X/R, pérdidas, taps) and says they may be defaulted silently, leaving most parameters undocumented in both schema and description. It adds some meaning for those few fields but does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Crea un transformador P2'. It also states the tool's distinctive scope: fields like %Z, X/R, losses, and taps are omitted and filled with silent defaults. This differentiates it from a generic transformer-creation sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

The mention of omitting %Z, X/R, losses, and taps 'con defaults silenciosos' implies this tool is for cases where professional data is incomplete. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use rule, and no named alternative such as agregar_transformador is given.

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