validar_construccion_rev0

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: 'sin mutar OpenDSS' signals a non-mutating, read-only validation. It says nothing, though, about what the preflight checks, whether a failure blocks downstream construction, or what the caller should do with the result.

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, and the non-mutation constraint is front-loaded. It is efficient, though brevity here shades into under-specification rather than pure 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 with a required, undocumented nested object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin: no manifest expectations, no output/failure semantics, no sequencing guidance relative to construir_modelo_rev0.

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% and the single 'manifest' parameter is an untyped nested object with additionalProperties:true, so the contract is completely opaque from structured data. The description only hints that the manifest is 'intake' data; it gives no fields, expected shape, or examples, so it fails to compensate.

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 a verb ('Valida') and an object ('intake + preflight del materializador'), so the general activity is identifiable. However, 'materializador', 'intake' and 'preflight' are internal jargon that does not clearly separate this tool from its obvious siblings obtener_contrato_construccion_rev0 and construir_modelo_rev0, both of which concern the same rev0 construction flow.

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 statement of when this validation should be run, in what order relative to construir_modelo_rev0, or what condition makes it necessary versus the contract-retrieval sibling. The agent must infer sequencing entirely from the name.

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