aplicar_conductor

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a key side effect ('invalida resultados previos') and the conditional update rule for R1/X1, which is real added value. However it omits permissions requirements, the scope of invalidation, and what the operation returns.

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?

Two compact sentences with the assignment action front-loaded and no filler. The domain jargon is dense but each sentence conveys distinct 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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description covers the invalidation behavior well but leaves parameters and permission/return context undocumented. Partially adequate, but gaps remain that an agent must guess at.

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% and the description does not document any of the four parameters (codigo, instalacion, nombre_elemento, actualizar_impedancia). References to 'formación elegida' and R1/X1 updates only loosely hint at instalacion and actualizar_impedancia, leaving the parameters effectively unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Asigna un conductor de catálogo a Line.*', which is concrete and actionable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from catalog siblings like listar_conductores or obtener_conductor, but the assignment action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named for comparison. The note that ampacity 'puede aplicarse de forma independiente' hints at a related path but does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over others.

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