agenda

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the whole burden. It doesn't say whether this mutates an existing slide, whether it replaces current content on the table slide, whether exceeding 8 points errors or truncates, or what a successful call returns. For a write-style layout tool that is a real gap.

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?

Two short sentences with the visual result first and the placement constraint second; nothing is wasted. It is perhaps overly terse for the amount of behaviour left unexplained, but the structure and front-loading are good.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the definition should say more about side effects on the target table slide and about what happens when the point count or slide type is wrong. What is present is accurate but leaves an agent guessing on the mechanics of the write.

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 two top-level id/slide parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does add meaning for the puntos array by explaining how numero/titulo/descripcion render, and it restates the max of 8 that the schema already enforces via maxItems. Net value is moderate, not compensating for the undescribed puntos array itself.

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?

States concretely what it produces: a two-column agenda of up to 8 points, each with a number in the accent color, a title and a description. That is a specific verb-less but resource-rich description an agent can match to a deck-building intent. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbours like tarjetas_numeradas or diapositiva_contenido.

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?

'Úsala sobre una diapositiva_tabla' gives one concrete application context, which is more than nothing. But it never says when to pick this over the similar numbered-cards or content-slide siblings, nor whether the target table slide must be empty first. Usage is implied rather than framed.

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