Apply Buffers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether this is a pure computation or a persisted mutation, whether results are additive on top of an existing estimate, or how the inputs interact. 'Aditivos' hints at additive composition but no other trait is exposed.

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 short sentence with no padding and the purpose front-loaded, which is structurally fine. The problem is under-specification rather than bloat, so it earns a middling score: nothing wastes space, but little is delivered.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a six-parameter calculation tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage the description is far too thin. It leaves the meaning of qa_level, codebase_type and the percentage parameters, plus the Spanish/English mismatch with the tool name, unexplained.

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 all six parameters. It loosely names five buffer domains that map to pm_buffer_pct, qa_level, codebase_type, has_third_party_integrations and extra_contingency_pct, but gives no units, ranges, accepted values (qa_level and codebase_type are unenumerated strings), or default behavior. The mapping is suggestive rather than explanatory.

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 verb 'aplica buffers aditivos' plus the five named buffer categories (código, integraciones, PM, QA, contingencia) give a rough sense of what the tool does, but it never states what is being buffered — presumably PERT hour estimates from the sibling calculate_pert. It does not differentiate itself from calculate_pert or calculate_quotation, which an agent must choose between.

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 to use this tool versus the many sibling estimators (calculate_pert, calculate_quotation, compare_scenarios). No prerequisites, no ordering guidance such as 'call after calculate_pert'. The agent must infer usage 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.