configurar_bus_unifilar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It says what setting is changed but does not disclose side effects, persistence, workspace requirements, or whether the change affects only the diagram or the underlying model.

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 that states the configuration behavior without any filler. It is appropriately concise for the core purpose, even if more detail would be useful elsewhere.

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 three-parameter configuration tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits parameter meanings, usage context, and behavioral details an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters. It hints at the meaning of the role choice (barra física vs conexión lógica) but does not explain the parameters nombre_bus, etiqueta, or rol, nor any valid values.

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 gives a specific verb (Configura) and resource (bus unifilar) plus the exact setting affected: whether the bus is drawn as a physical bar or logical connection. It is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as obtener_configuracion_unifilar or generar_diagrama_unifilar. The context is implied but no when/when-not conditions or prerequisites are stated.

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