registrar_venta

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully adds what actually changes: stock is decremented and an operation record is created. It does not cover reversibility, permission requirements, or failure modes such as insufficient stock, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the action and its effects come first, then the usage guardrail. The capitalised warning line is deliberate emphasis rather than filler, though it partially restates the destructive annotation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the mutation's effect on state is described. However, an irreversible write tool with 0% parameter documentation and no auth, stock-check, or error guidance is only minimally complete.

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 0% and the description adds no information about the three required parameters. Their names (cliente_id, producto_id, cantidad) are self-explanatory, but no format, ID source, or unit/limit semantics are given, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (registra) and resource (una venta) plus the two concrete side effects: descuenta stock and crea el registro de la operación. That side-effect profile cleanly separates it from the read-only sibling consultar_stock, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition: use only when the customer has explicitly confirmed they want to buy. That is a clear when-to-use rule, but no alternative tool or when-not-to-use path (e.g. first check stock via consultar_stock) is named.

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