registrar_simulacro

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal an important side effect—updating the repaso of each evaluated topic—and clarifies the expected scope of temas_evaluados. However, it omits details about overwriting behavior, required permissions, or response format.

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 dense sentence with no filler and front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly better structured, but every clause adds relevant 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?

Given six parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but not complete context. It explains the main purpose and side effect and adds the key constraint on temas_evaluados, but leaves usage routing and some parameter semantics to the schema and sibling names.

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 only 33%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds useful meaning by constraining nota to 1–7 and by specifying that temas_evaluados must include every assessed topic. It does not clarify cedulas beyond the schema's example and only names rubrica, fortalezas, and a_mejorar without detail.

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 the action: save a mock-exam result and update the review state of each evaluated topic. The resource ('simulacro') and the side effect distinguish it from close siblings like registrar_respuesta and calcular_nota, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 used after a simulacro and instructs the agent to include all assessed topics in temas_evaluados. It does not state when to prefer this over registrar_respuesta or calcular_nota, nor does it list exclusions or prerequisites.

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