Editar un cultivo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely behavioral rule not in the annotations: "Los campos omitidos conservan su valor actual", disclosing that this is a partial (PATCH-style) update rather than a full replace. It leaves one real ambiguity unaddressed — the schema accepts explicit null for every field, and the description does not say whether null clears a value or counts as omitted.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the mutation scope stated first and the partial-update rule second. Nothing restates the title or wastes tokens.

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 9-parameter mutation with an output schema already defined, the description is adequate but thin: it explains the default-null = keep-current rule and names four field groups, yet ignores setting/exposure coordinates entirely and says nothing about behavior when crop_id does not resolve. Enough to call the tool, not enough to call it confidently on every parameter.

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 only 11% (only crop_id is documented in the schema), so the description carries most of the burden. It partially compensates by grouping the mutable fields (nombre, tipo, forma, lugar) and by explaining the default=null semantics as "unchanged", but it never mentions setting, exposure, latitude/longitude or place_name by name, leaving half the parameters to be inferred from enum values and min/max alone.

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?

"Cambia nombre, tipo, forma o lugar del cultivo" gives a clear verb (Cambia) plus the resource (cultivo) and enumerates the mutable aspects, so an agent distinguishes it from get_crop/list_crops at a glance. It stops short of naming siblings such as create_crop or delete_crop explicitly, and it silently omits the setting/exposure/latitude/longitude fields, so it is not a full 5.

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: the imperative "Cambia..." signals the edit operation on an existing crop, and the fact that only crop_id is required makes the intent inferable. There is no explicit when-to-use, no precondition (e.g. crop must already exist), and no pointer to set_crop_automation or delete_crop as alternatives for other modifications.

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