simular_perdida_alimentador

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 that the simulation is 'registered in the workspace' (a mutation), but gives no information about permissions, whether the contingency is applied and restored, or what state changes persist — notably the unexplained 'restaurar' semantics.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action. It is well-sized, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 tool that mutates workspace state, with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves critical questions unanswered: prerequisites, reversibility, and the meaning of both inputs.

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 both parameters. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate: it never explains that 'nombre_elemento' identifies the element to trip nor what 'restaurar' (default true) controls.

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 ('Simula') and resource ('contingencia N-1'), plus the side effect of registering it in the workspace. However, it does not differentiate itself from related execution/simulation siblings such as ejecutar_escenarios_operativos or analizar_flujo_operacion, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. whether a workspace must already be configured), and no exclusions. The agent must infer that it is a contingency-analysis step.

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