preview_submit_choice_response

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the statement 'no guarda ninguna respuesta' is redundant. However, the description adds the behavioral detail that it resolves visible texts to options, which is not captured anywhere else. It does not contradict annotations, and it provides a little extra context, but the overall behavioral disclosure is thin for a tool with no output schema.

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 extremely short (one sentence) and gets to the point quickly, which is good for conciseness. However, it omits crucial details like the relationship between parameters and the output behavior, so it feels under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It is not verbose, but it lacks substance.

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 three required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value, the exact effect of the resolution (e.g., does it return a mapped choice ID?), or any error conditions. The agent has to infer too much about how to use 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter clarity. It only hints that option_texts likely contains the visible texts to resolve, but it does not explain the roles of course_id or choice_id, nor the exact format expected for option_texts. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently construct a valid call.

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 states a clear action: it resolves visible texts into Choice options, and explicitly notes it does not save any response. This distinguishes it from the sibling submit_choice_response, which would actually save. The verb 'resuelve' is specific enough to convey the core function, though a bit terse about the exact mapping behavior.

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 description implies this is a preview operation by saying it does not save, but it never explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives like submit_choice_response or preview_cancel_choice_response. There is no mention of 'use this to preview before submitting' or any routing guidance. It's left to inference.

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