cifras_destacadas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only describes appearance. It doesn't say whether the row is appended to an existing slide, what permissions or state are needed, whether re-invoking duplicates objects, or what happens with the x/y/ancho/alto defaults.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler, which is appropriately sized. The trade-off is that the terseness comes from describing only styling, not from efficiently conveying the operation.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and near-identical siblings, the description should explain prerequisite state, placement semantics, and differentiation. It supplies only the visual layout and a default color, leaving major gaps for a write operation.

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 only 43%, and the description covers only a fraction of it: it restates the 1–4 item limit and adds the useful default 'titulo' for the figure color. The four geometry parameters (x, y, alto, ancho) receive no explanation, and y has no schema description at all.

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 names the resource (a row of 1–4 highlighted figures/cards) and describes its visual composition, so an agent can infer what gets produced. However, it is a noun phrase with no action verb, and it doesn't distinguish this from the very similar sibling 'tarjetas_numeradas' or from '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?

No guidance on when to use this versus tarjetas_numeradas, diapositiva_figura, grafica, or a plain content slide. Nothing states that an existing presentation and slide are required, even though documento and diapositiva are mandatory.

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