cerrar_elemento

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at a mutation (resolve + sync persistent revision) but says nothing about whether closing is reversible, what happens to unresolved dependencies, required preconditions, or the effect on the stored revision.

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 with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is terse rather than padded, though it is arguably too compressed to be informative.

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 one-required-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not clarify what closing does to the model state, what "revisión persistente" means, or what a caller should expect afterward.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for nombre_elemento and the description adds no meaning about it (format, identifier type, naming rules). With the one param undocumented in both places, the description fails to compensate for the schema 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?

States a verb and resource ("Cierra un elemento") plus an added effect ("resuelve y sincroniza la revisión persistente"), which distinguishes it loosely from cerrar_elemento_sin_resolver. However, it never names that sibling and never explains what "cerrar" an element actually means in this model context, leaving the purpose only partially resolved.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance. The implicit contrast with cerrar_elemento_sin_resolver and abrir_elemento is left entirely for the agent to infer from the name.

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