configurar_alimentador_unifilar

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: the operation does not touch OpenDSS, implying the simulation model is left intact. It says nothing about persistence, whether prior metadata is overwritten, permissions, or side effects, all of which matter for this configuration call.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally efficient. The terseness is arguably under-specification rather than true conciseness, but as written nothing is wasted.

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?

Eight parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage make this a data-mutating configuration tool that the one-sentence description does not adequately cover. An agent cannot know from this text what values are valid, what gets overwritten, or how the change is persisted.

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, so the schema offers only bare titles ('Etiqueta', 'Conductor', 'Proteccion', 'Corriente Nominal A', etc.) with no semantics. 'Metadatos visuales' loosely gestures at the label/conductor category but gives no meaning for corriente_nominal_a, capacidad_ruptura_ka, dispositivos, or fuente_alterna, which are protection data rather than visual properties.

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 ('Configura') and resource ('metadatos visuales de un alimentador'), and the closing 'sin tocar OpenDSS' pins the scope to visual-only changes. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely-named siblings configurar_etiqueta_carga_unifilar, configurar_bus_unifilar, and configurar_tipo_carga_unifilar, so the agent must infer which feeder sub-object this targets.

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?

'Sin tocar OpenDSS' implicitly signals when this tool is appropriate versus model-mutating siblings, which is a useful hint. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no named alternative, and no prerequisite guidance for an 8-parameter tool.

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