estilo_texto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool modifies existing text and can target either all text or a paragraph, but it does not state whether unspecified style properties are preserved, whether changes are reversible, what happens if índice is invalid, or whether any permissions/conditions apply.

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 is front-loaded with the main action and then lists the relevant style dimensions efficiently. It is dense but contains no filler, though the parenthetical provenance note slightly interrupts the flow.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 40% schema description coverage, the description leaves too much unspecified. It helps with style parameters and the source of tipo/índice, but does not fully explain required identifiers, enum semantics, preservation behavior, or failure conditions.

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 only 40%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds meaning for several style parameters (fuente, tamaño, color, negrita, cursiva) and clarifies that parrafo selects a paragraph versus all text, but it does not explain the tipo enum values, the meaning of índice, or how documento/diapositiva are interpreted beyond what the schema already says.

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 states a specific verb+resource: changing the style of existing text, and enumerates the style properties it can modify. It implicitly distinguishes itself from insertion tools like poner_texto by specifying 'texto existente', but it does not explicitly name or differentiate against any sibling tool.

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?

It gives a useful provenance hint that tipo and índice come from leer_presentacion con detalle, and the 'texto existente' wording implies this is for restyling, not inserting text. However, it does not state when to use this versus alternatives such as poner_texto or crear_con_formato, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the source of identifiers.

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