cerrar_elemento_sin_resolver

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one negative trait (no Solve, no workspace file regeneration), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about persistence, validation, side effects, or what 'cerrar' actually does to the model state.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action, though the terseness partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 an element-lifecycle mutation tool in a large power-systems domain with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. It omits state implications, error conditions, and how it pairs with abrir_elemento_sin_resolver.

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% for the single parameter nombre_elemento, so the description must compensate and does not mention it at all. The agent gets no hint about the expected identifier format or whether it must match an element previously opened.

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 verb 'Cierra' plus resource 'elemento' is stated, and the qualifier 'sin resolver' hints at a distinction from cerrar_elemento. However, it never says what an 'elemento' is in this domain (circuit, line, load?) or explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling cerrar_elemento, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name alone.

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 guidance about when to choose this over cerrar_elemento, or over abrir_elemento_sin_resolver, despite the sibling list containing near-identical names. The description only restates behavior, not selection criteria or preconditions.

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