diapositiva_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: the video loops, the source caption ('origen') is mandatory, and the observation panel is constrained to 2–3 bullets. However, it never states that the call mutates the deck, where the slide is inserted by default (the 'despues_de' behavior is only in the schema), or what happens on invalid input.

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 that front-loads the slide identity and then enumerates the layout zones in reading order. Nothing is padded, though the 'mazo v3' jargon assumes template familiarity the reader may not have.

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 nine-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the visual layout but omits the essentials an agent needs to call it safely: that it creates and inserts a slide into a specific presentation, the default insertion position, and whether the deck must be saved afterward. Layout detail is rich; operational context is thin.

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?

At 56% schema coverage, the description adds meaning for roughly four of nine parameters: 'origen' is flagged as obligatory, 'observar' gets a content hint ('QUÉ OBSERVAR') and a bullet count, and 'antetítulo' is implied to be fixed to 'ANIMACIÓN'. The five remaining parameters ('documento', 'titulo', 'pie', 'notas', 'despues_de') receive no elaboration, and the stated '2–3 viñetas' is looser than the schema's minItems 1 / maxItems 4.

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 resource — a video slide of the 'mazo v3' template — and spells out its three zones (antetítulo ANIMACIÓN, looping video on a white card with a mandatory source caption, and 'QUÉ OBSERVAR' bullets), which distinguishes it from diapositiva_figura, diapositiva_tabla and insertar_medio. The creation/insertion verb is only implicit in the noun phrase, and the 'documento' target is never mentioned, so it falls short of a fully self-contained purpose statement.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though insertar_medio and diapositiva_figura are plausible competitors for placing media on a slide. The agent must infer that this tool is the one to call when the deck needs a video slide in the v3 template.

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