agregar_diapositiva

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that insertion is at the end by default, that despues_de=0 means the front, and that a missing layout produces an error enumerating valid layout names. It omits what the tool returns (no output schema) and whether changes are persisted/saved.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and the placement rule, then appends the error-recovery hint. 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 simple 3-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers placement and failure modes but says nothing about the return value (e.g., new slide index or confirmation) or about persistence, leaving a gap an agent may need to fill empirically.

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%; the one undescribed parameter (despues_de) is explained in the description ('0 = al principio'), which is exactly the kind of value the schema lacks. It also clarifies that diseno is matched by name and that names are discoverable from the error message, adding real meaning beyond the schema text.

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?

Specific verb ('Agrega') and resource ('una diapositiva con un diseño maestro') with explicit placement scope (end, or after a given slide). It doesn't differentiate from the specialized siblings (diapositiva_portada, diapositiva_contenido, diapositiva_tabla), so an agent can't easily tell when to use this generic adder versus a typed one.

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 placement semantics are stated, but there is no when-to-use guidance relative to the many alternative slide-creation siblings, nor any prerequisite (e.g., presentation must be open). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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