presentation_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds significant context by explaining that the update creates a new version and 'No borra el historial' (does not delete history), which is crucial non-destructive behavior. While it doesn't mention return values or auth, it covers the most important behavioral aspect for an update 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 a single, concise sentence that leads with the main action ('Actualiza'), then explains the key behavior (creates a new version) and a critical guarantee (does not delete history). Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 relatively simple with 4 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema. The description provides enough behavioral context (versioning, history preservation) and parameter clarity. It could mention what the tool returns, but this is not critical for a mutation tool, and the description is otherwise complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds value by explicitly stating that it 'reemplaza HTML y/o metadata' (replaces HTML and/or metadata), clarifying that the 'html' parameter and metadata fields (tags, title) are the ones affected. This gives the agent a better understanding of how the parameters are grouped and applied.

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 uses the specific verb 'Actualiza' (updates) with the resource 'presentación existente' (existing presentation), and specifies the scope by stating it replaces HTML and/or metadata. It also distinguishes itself from a simple overwrite by noting it creates a new version, which sets it apart from direct update semantics.

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 implies the tool is for modifying existing presentations by creating a new version, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like presentation_rollback or presentation_deploy. There is no direct exclusion or naming of alternative tools, so the guidance is merely implied rather than explicit.

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