zyta_judicial_cursor_registrar_actuacion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a write operation ('registra actuaciones') and that the backend uses AI. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects. For a mutation tool, more transparency on behavior would be beneficial.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Includes the API endpoint as added detail. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff.

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 tool is a write operation with 3 parameters, no output schema. The description explains input and resolution logic, but lacks information about the return value or confirmation feedback. While the context is reasonable, completeness would improve with output details.

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 100%, and the description adds context beyond the schema: message is free text task, link is optional, expedienteId is UUID for specific case. It explains the AI resolution logic when expedienteId is omitted, adding value.

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 clearly states the verb 'Registra' and resource 'actuaciones en una causa sin portal'. It specifies that it works from a free text message and uses AI to resolve the case if no expedienteId is provided. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other judicial functions.

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 explains when to use the tool: for cases without portal, and gives two methods—either let AI resolve or provide expedienteId. It also mentions optional link. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives (e.g., tools for cases with portal).

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