capturar_cuenta_destino

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals that the tool confirms the disbursement and generates an operation number, indicating significant side effects. It also transparently marks the tool as internal and off-limits to the agent, though it stops short of detailing permissions, reversibility, or failure modes.

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 concise sentences, with the functional purpose stated first and the critical warning delivered immediately after. Every word earns its place, and the structure front-loads the most important information for the agent.

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 that the agent is explicitly forbidden to invoke, this description is complete: it explains what the tool does internally, what inputs it expects, and, crucially, tells the agent not to use it. No output schema is needed given that the agent will never see the results. The description fully suffices for its intended audience.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It identifies 'cuenta destino del desembolso' and 'forma de pago (automatico/manual)', which directly maps to the two parameters but does not add validation, formatting, or behavioral differences between payment methods. The explanation is minimal but sufficient to understand what each parameter represents.

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 the destination account and payment method, generates an operation number, and confirms the disbursement. It uses specific verbs and resources, and its role as an internal widget step distinguishes it from sibling tools like initiating a loan or choosing a payment plan.

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 'NO debe ser invocada por el agente' (must not be invoked by the agent), providing an unambiguous exclusion. It also places the tool in the context of post-authorization internal widget flows, making it clear when it should (not) be used.

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