configurar_estudiante

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses partial-update semantics ('sólo se cambian los que vengan') and the university fallback, but it does not reveal return behavior, persistence side effects, or whether the profile must already exist.

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 focused sentences with no filler; the main purpose is front-loaded and the conditional fallback is stated compactly.

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?

For a 6-parameter, all-optional config tool with no output schema, the description covers the fields, update semantics, and the main edge case (unknown university). It is slightly incomplete on what happens after saving or what the tool returns, but nothing critical is missing for invoking it correctly.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter meaning beyond the schema by explaining that universidad can be 'otra' and that the exam description then goes in notas, plus the global optionality of all fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Guarda o actualiza el perfil del estudiante') and enumerates the exact fields involved. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling guardar_perfil_examen, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

It provides clear context: this tool is for saving/updating the student profile and is a partial update. The conditional instruction about 'otra' and notas gives concrete usage direction, though it never names an alternative tool or states when not to use it.

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