Crear un cultivo

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

Annotations already declare this a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful behavior the schema cannot convey: VIRTUAL crops are fed by the simulator, and REAL crops return MQTT credentials exactly once and the server then hides them from the model — a critical, one-shot side effect an agent must anticipate.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, with no filler. The second sentence is dense but packs two distinct facts (simulator behavior, one-time credential return) without separating them, which slightly hurts scanability but not economy.

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 no explanation. However, for an 11-parameter creation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify at least the geography parameters (latitude/longitude/place_name pairing) and the virtual_mode vs virtual_interval_seconds interaction; it covers only 'kind', leaving most of the call surface 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% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. It explains only 'kind' (REAL vs VIRTUAL) and its consequences; form, setting, exposure, latitude/longitude, place_name, virtual_mode and virtual_interval_seconds are left entirely to bare enum values in the schema, with no explanation of which combinations are valid.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Crea un cultivo'), which inherently separates it from update_crop, delete_crop and list_crops. It also clarifies that the tool has two modes with distinct outcomes. It never names a sibling explicitly, but the create verb makes the routing decision unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when a crop must exist. The VIRTUAL/REAL sentence hints at choosing the simulator-backed mode for testing, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or 'use X instead' statements, and no guidance on prerequisites such as requiring an account or a valid location.

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