diapositiva_portada

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only describes the visual result. It does not state that this mutates the presentation by adding a slide, how insertion order works, what permissions or document state are required, or what happens on failure.

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?

The single-sentence description is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is under-specified for a seven-parameter mutation tool. Its brevity reflects missing action and usage context rather than tight completeness.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool with seven parameters, the description is incomplete. It omits the action of creating a slide, the required documento parameter, insertion behavior via despues_de, notes handling, and any side effects or prerequisites.

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 57%, and the description adds visual meaning for four fields: antetítulo, título, subtítulo, and autor. It does not clarify the important documento, notas, or despues_de parameters, which are only partly described in the schema.

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 identifies the slide type as a cover slide and enumerates its visual elements (pre-title, large title, italic subtitle, author). However, it never explicitly states that the tool creates or adds a slide to a presentation, and differentiation from sibling slide types relies mostly on the tool name.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as diapositiva_contenido, diapositiva_divisor, or diapositiva_cierre. It also omits prerequisites like needing an open or created presentation.

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