registrar_respuesta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses that the tool mutates spaced-repetition state, defines the 1-4 calibration scale, and constrains grading to the first attempt. It stops short of stating side effects like whether previous grades are overwritten or what happens on repeated calls, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 dense and front-loaded, opening with the mandatory usage condition and then covering the calibration scale, the first-attempt rule, and the error-field requirement in just a few sentences. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler.

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 tool with six parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential decisions: when to call it, how to grade, which attempt to grade, and how to fill `error`. It leaves some context implicit (e.g., how `modo` and `confianza` combine with the grade), but the schema supplies enough of that, so the description is largely 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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds real meaning beyond the schema for two key parameters: it defines each `calificacion` value and specifies that `error` should be a concrete, teachable phrase. `modo` and `confianza` rely on their enum/schema descriptions, but the most behaviorally important parameters are well explained.

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 states a clear action ('Actualiza el repaso espaciado del tema') tied to a specific resource ('respuesta evaluable del estudiante'), so an agent can tell this is the per-answer feedback tool. It does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like registrar_simulacro, though the name and 'respuesta evaluable' strongly imply the distinction.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'OBLIGATORIA después de cada respuesta evaluable del estudiante.' It also gives a precise exclusion rule ('Califica el PRIMER intento'), but it does not name alternatives or describe when another tool should be used instead.

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