diapositiva_contenido

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden alone. It does disclose one behavioral trait beyond the schema — that animating bullets produces one-click fade-in entrances — but says nothing about whether the deck is persisted, what is returned (new slide id/index), or what happens on an invalid document id.

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 compact sentences with the layout enumeration front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient but borders on under-specification, since the opening is a label rather than an action statement.

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 an eight-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the visual layout well but leaves the agent guessing about return value, persistence side effects, and error conditions. Adequate, not complete.

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 88%, so parameters are already well documented (despues_de default/range, documento source, antetitulo casing). The description adds only marginal meaning — it clarifies that bullets run full width and that the footer is a section footer, and implies page numbering is automatic rather than a parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific layout (antetítulo, título, viñetas a todo el ancho, pie, número de página), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like diapositiva_portada, diapositiva_divisor or diapositiva_cierre. However it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb — the agent must infer that the tool inserts a new slide into an existing document, and the relationship to the generic sibling agregar_diapositiva is not stated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the other slide-creation siblings (agregar_diapositiva, diapositiva_portada, diapositiva_figura, diapositiva_tabla, agenda), nor any prerequisite such as the document having to exist or be open. The only conditional hint is 'Con animar_vinetas, cada viñeta entra con un clic', which explains an option rather than when to pick the tool.

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