record_macro_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the tool is advisory-only, does not execute, intentionally crosses constraint #2, and blocks execution if '<required>' is in the source. It also describes the return object shape. Minor deduction for not stating idempotency or side effects, but overall strong.

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 somewhat verbose and includes bilingual repetition (Spanish and English). It is structured with an 'Args' section and front-loaded key points, but overall length could be reduced without losing essential information. The structure is clear but not highly 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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides purpose, parameter details, behavioral notes, and return object shape. However, it omits documentation for the 'assumptions' parameter, does not describe error handling, and lacks explicit guidance on handling the '<required>' blocking. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 0%, so description compensates. It documents 5 of 6 parameters with specific semantics: intent (sentence describing macro), generated_source (full VBA body, .swb format), proc_name (default 'main'), provenance (structure for audit), confidence (0-10 affects recommendation). The missing 'assumptions' parameter is a gap, but the described parameters are rich and helpful.

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 tool's purpose: registering a VBA macro job for advisory purposes only. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'run_macro_job' by emphasizing it does not execute and that human review of 'generated_source' is required. It also explains the design rationale of crossing constraint #2, providing unique context.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for recording/advisory only ('Solo asesoría: NO ejecuta nada') and directs the agent to use 'run_macro_job' for execution. It implies use cases outside the verb catalog but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond the execution sibling.

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