diapositiva_cierre

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only describes the content of the slide. It does not disclose that this is a mutating operation that adds a slide to an existing presentation, that it goes to the end by default (only the schema's despues_de reveals that), or that 'subtítulo en el color de acento' is an automatic styling side effect.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no waste, and the key content (título 'Gracias', subtítulo, autor) is front-loaded. But it is under-specified rather than concise – a missing verb and missing operational context are not compensated by brevity.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the visible fields of the resulting slide. It omits the action itself, the required documento, presenter notes, and insertion placement, leaving significant gaps for an agent to fill.

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 50%, and the description partially compensates: it reveals that titulo defaults to 'Gracias' and that subtitulo is rendered in the accent color, which is non-obvious semantics beyond the schema. It says nothing about documento (required), notas, or despues_de, but the schema already documents those three.

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 fragment names the slide type ('Cierre') and its contents (título, subtítulo, autor), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like diapositiva_portada or diapositiva_divisor by convention. However, there is no verb at all – nothing states that this CREATES and appends a slide to a presentation – so the agent must infer the action from the tool family naming pattern.

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 diapositiva_portada, diapositiva_divisor, or diapositiva_contenido, nor any prerequisites (e.g. that a presentation must be open/identified via documento). The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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