autorizar_con_clave

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is internal and returns a result, but does not describe the result format, error behavior, or side effects. The strong prohibition on agent invocation adds some behavioral context, but details are lacking.

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, front-loads the purpose, and immediately delivers the key warning. Every word earns its place without fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the explicit instruction that the agent must not use it, the description sufficiently covers what an agent needs to know. It omits return-value details, but those are irrelevant since the tool is not for agent use.

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 already fully describes the pin parameter as a dynamic 4-digit key. The description only adds that the PIN comes from the user keypad, which is minor context and does not significantly enhance understanding of the parameter.

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 tool receives a PIN and returns an authorization result, and explicitly marks it as internal to the widget, which distinguishes it from the sibling loan-processing tools.

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 explicitly instructs that the agent must NOT invoke the tool, which is the ultimate usage guideline. This clearly signals when not to use it and provides no ambiguity about its intended caller.

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