Finalizar y aplicar ronda

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

The annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: transactional application, mandatory confirmation, exact-match requirement, the OCR confidence threshold for auto-detections, and preservation of higher quantities in minimum mode. No contradiction exists.

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 compact: three dense sentences that front-load the purpose and then list prerequisites and optional behaviors. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 destructive tool with no output schema and only basic annotations, the description covers the action, required flag, exact matching condition, and optional auto-detection behavior. The main missing piece is explaining what 'minimum mode' is or how it is triggered, since it does not map to any schema 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining confirm=true, use_auto_detections's OCR-confidence behavior, and expected owned unique via the total_poseídas condition. It does not explicitly name round_id, but round_id is self-evident from the schema, and 'minimum mode' is mentioned without a corresponding parameter.

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 concrete action, 'Aplica una ronda completa de forma transaccional', and clearly names the resource being operated on. This cleanly distinguishes the tool from siblings like round_start, round_status, and round_record.

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?

It specifies important invocation preconditions: confirm must be true, expected owned total must exactly match total_catálogo - huecos, and it explains the default vs. use_auto_detections behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the round_* sibling workflow makes the intended usage reasonably clear.

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