definir_condiciones_ampacidad

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one behavioral rule (secondary P3B factors need explicit opt-in), which is mildly useful. But it never says whether this mutates persisted state, what permissions are needed, what defaults get applied, or what happens to existing conditions when called again — a significant gap for a 13-parameter mutation tool.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. However, brevity here shades into under-specification given the parameter surface, so it is concise but insufficient rather than genuinely well-structured.

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?

A complex tool with 13 parameters, no annotations and no output schema gets a single sentence. The opt-in note is the only behavior conveyed; parameter handling, defaults, and interaction with sibling ampacity tools are absent, leaving the definition materially incomplete for correct invocation.

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 13 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It maps loosely to ib_diseno_a/in_proteccion_a and the factores/permitir_* opt-in flags, but leaves referencia_ib, referencia_in, base_normativa, referencia_condiciones_instalacion, confirmar_condiciones_base, usar_corriente_flujo_como_ib and more completely 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 names specific quantities (Ib/In/Iz) which signals a calculation-condition-definition tool, so the purpose isn't a pure tautology. However, it never states the resource being configured (an element's ampacity conditions) and gives no differentiation from siblings like evaluar_ampacidad or resolver_factor_normativo_ampacidad. An agent must infer scope from the tool 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?

The clause 'factores P3B secundarios requieren opt-in explícito' hints that secondary-dataset factors are gated behind explicit flags, which is light behavioral usage guidance. But there is no statement of when to call this vs alternatives (e.g. listar_datasets_numericos_ampacidad, resolver_base_normativa_ampacidad), nor any prerequisites beyond the opt-in hint.

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