guardar_material

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the format for 'tarjetas' (P:/R: separated by blank line) and mentions export capability, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing material, requires authentication, or is reversible). The disclosed format is useful but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences long with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose ('Guarda material... para volver a verlo') and then adds a specific detail about tarjetas and Anki export. Every clause earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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 simple save operation, the description covers the essential context: what is saved, why, and the specific format for one type. It does not mention return values or error handling, but for a non-destructive save tool without an output schema, that is likely not needed. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 50%, with descriptions for 'tema' and 'contenido' but not for 'tipo' and 'titulo'. The description adds meaning about the types of material and the tarjeta format, which helps with 'tipo' and 'contenido', but it does not explain 'titulo'. It partially compensates for the schema gaps but leaves some parameters undefined.

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 a specific action ('Guarda material') with a defined resource type (ficha, cuadro, etc.) and its purpose (para volver a verlo). It also adds the Anki export detail for tarjetas, which helps differentiate from related tools like 'ver_material' (viewing) and 'exportar' (exporting). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 when to use the tool (when material was useful and should be saved for later viewing) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It briefly mentions export to Anki but does not position it against the 'exportar' sibling. More explicit guidance on when to choose this over other tools would improve this dimension.

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