zyta_expedientes_update

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a PATCH operation and optional enSeguimiento endpoint, but does not explain permission requirements, side effects, or whether fields are replaced or merged. Incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 very short and gets to the point, but it is fragmented and not a complete sentence. Could be more structured while remaining concise.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or the effect of each parameter. The hint about enSeguimiento is helpful but not enough for a complex tool.

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 only 25% (descriptions for id and enSeguimiento only). The description adds no additional parameter semantics; it only restates that enSeguimiento is optional. Most parameters (fuero, estado, juzgado, caratula, humanKey, numeroExpediente) remain unexplained, leaving the agent without context.

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?

Description clearly states it edits a cause without portal, mentions HTTP method and endpoint, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/delete/get by focusing on update. However, it could explicitly differentiate when to use this vs other update-like tools if any.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., create, delete, list), the description does not specify scenarios or prerequisites.

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