diapositiva_tabla

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral contract — the content area is left empty so later tools (tabla, ecuacion, forma) fill it. It omits, however, that this is a mutating create operation, what it returns (presumably a slide handle), and whether anything existing is affected.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource and then the layout fields. The semicolon-clause structure is efficient, though the omission of the verb means brevity came at some cost to action clarity.

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 the layout contract but not the creation semantics, return value, or ordering behavior. The rich schema partially compensates, leaving a definition that is adequate but not self-sufficient.

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 83%, so the schema already documents documento, antetitulo, pie, notas and despues_de. The description only restates the three text slots (antetítulo, título, pie) and adds nothing about notas, documento, or insertion positioning. Baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas is correct here.

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 specific resource and its layout anatomy (antetítulo, título, pie de sección, free content area), which distinguishes it from diapositiva_contenido/diapositiva_figura by the empty body slot. However, no explicit creation verb appears — it reads as a layout spec rather than 'creates a table slide', so the action is inferred from the name and siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: the free content area is said to be 'para tabla, ecuacion, forma, gráficas o componentes', hinting this is the shell you pick before dropping in a table. It never states when to choose this over diapositiva_contenido or diapositiva_figura, nor that a presentation must be open / that the slide is appended by default.

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