Confirmar o corregir una ronda

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

Annotations already signal idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds valuable behavioral nuance by stating that the operation 'aún no altera la colección', which would otherwise be unclear given readOnlyHint=false. It also explains mode-dependent interpretation of card visibility and quantities.

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?

Four dense sentences, all earning their place. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by parameter-specific semantics and the important non-mutation note. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the core operation and mode behavior, and the idempotency annotation covers repeat-safety. However, it omits the place of this step in the round workflow (relative to round_analyze_screenshots and round_finalize), and the undocumented quantity_mode parameter is a notable gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 50%, so the description carries part of the burden. It usefully defines missing_numbers as numbered gaps and owned_numbers as OCR false-positive corrections, and explains the quantities behavior. However, it repeatedly references quantity_mode values ('minimum', 'exact') even though no such parameter appears in the schema, which creates ambiguity and cannot fully compensate for the undocumented round_id and quantities parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Registra observaciones confirmadas') with a clear resource ('tras revisar las capturas') and immediately clarifies what the tool is for. The closing note 'aún no altera la colección' differentiates it from sibling collection-mutation tools, and the missing/owned distinction makes its role in the round workflow clear.

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 gives contextual timing ('tras revisar las capturas') and explains the two functional cases: correcting OCR false positives with owned_numbers and recording confirmed missing numbers. It also describes the quantity modes, though it never explicitly names an alternative or says 'use this instead of X'.

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