crear_con_formato

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the important non-obvious side effect that 6 hidden prototype slides are added at the end and must not be deleted because the diapositiva_* tools depend on them. It doesn't cover permission requirements or what the tool returns, but the critical behavioral detail is front and center.

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 tightly written sentences: the first front-loads purpose and theme elements, the second delivers the critical warning about prototype slides. No wasted words, and the most important operational constraint is prioritized.

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 low-complexity creation tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the most dangerous side effect (hidden prototype slides). Minor gaps remain: what happens if 'nombre' is omitted, how the tool relates to sibling 'crear', and whether it opens/returns the presentation.

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?

There is one optional parameter ('nombre') and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter (e.g., default naming behavior), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Crea una presentación con el formato del tema activo', and clarifies the theme elements (backgrounds, fonts, palette). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the generic 'crear' sibling by emphasizing theme formatting, but it never explicitly contrasts the two.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over the sibling 'crear' (blank presentation) or any other alternative. The only operational rule is about not deleting prototype slides, which is behavioral guidance rather than selection criteria.

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