crudTabla

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels at behavioral disclosure. It clearly states destructive nature of delete operations with mandatory confirmation requirements, specifies exact confirmation phrasing, and provides operational constraints (no structural modifications). It adds substantial context beyond what the input schema provides about execution behavior.

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 appropriately sized but not optimally structured. It uses a rule-based format with headings (PROPÓSITO, REGLA, etc.) which helps organization, but some sections could be more concise. The delete confirmation rule is verbose but necessary. Overall, most sentences earn their place, but the structure could be more streamlined.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering operational context, behavioral constraints, and usage rules. It addresses the complexity of a multi-operation tool well. The main gap is lack of information about return values or error handling, which would be helpful given there's no output schema.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context about parameter usage: it explains that 'datos' is for create/update, 'filtro' is for read/update/delete, and provides an example showing how parameters work together. However, it doesn't fully explain the structure of nested objects in 'datos' and 'filtro' beyond what the schema already indicates.

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 explicitly states the purpose as performing CRUD operations (create, read, update, delete) on table records, using specific verbs and distinguishing it from structural modifications. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like crearTabla or eliminarTabla by emphasizing it's only for data manipulation, not table structure changes.

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?

The description provides explicit usage rules: when to use (for data manipulation), when NOT to use (for structural changes like ALTER, DROP, CREATE TABLE), and alternatives (implicitly pointing to sibling tools for structural operations). It includes mandatory confirmation requirements for delete operations with specific phrasing.

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