animar_cambio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key side effect: a new slide is created (duplication) and the original is left as the start state of the animation. It does not say where the duplicate is inserted, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens on failure, which keeps it from a 5.

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 technique name and then enumerates the supported transformations with their units. Nothing is wasted, though the semicolon-chained clause is heavy and could be split for faster scanning.

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 complex tool with a nested 'cambios' array and no output schema, the description explains the transformation vocabulary well but says nothing about the result — where the duplicated slide lands, whether an index/id is returned, or what the caller should do next. That gap matters for chaining calls.

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?

Adds real meaning beyond the 75%-covered schema: units for each change field (points for x/y/ancho/alto, degrees for rotacion, 0–100 for opacidad, hex for color_texto) and, importantly, that color_texto only applies to text objects. It does not explain 'tipo'/'indice' pairing or how multiple entries in 'cambios' are matched to objects.

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 a specific technique (Magic Move) and the exact mechanism: duplicates the slide, then moves/scales/rotates/fades/highlights objects in the copy so the transition animates the change. This clearly separates it from siblings like duplicar_diapositiva, mover_objeto and transicion, which only do one piece each.

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?

By explaining that the tool itself duplicates the slide and applies the changes to the copy, it implicitly tells the agent not to chain duplicar_diapositiva + mover_objeto manually. It gives no explicit exclusions or 'use X instead when...' guidance against transicion or mover_objeto, so it stops short of a 5.

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