guardar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: destination (.key in the copies folder) and the fact that new/imported files get a fresh copy rather than overwriting. Incomplete on error behavior and return value, but the core write semantics are disclosed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, then the scoping clause. Efficient with minimal waste, though the second sentence is a bit easy to misread.

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?

Covers what it does and where files land, but for a save/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around failure modes and how to interpret the resulting copy. Adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'nombre' and 'documento'. The description adds nothing about parameter formats or behavior, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (guarda) and resource (presentación de Atril) plus a concrete outcome: saved as .key in the copies folder. Distinguishes scope from user files via 'nunca guarda presentaciones del usuario', though this negative clause reads slightly ambiguously against the main action.

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?

Gives clear context for when it applies (new or PowerPoint-imported presentations get a new file) and an explicit exclusion ('nunca guarda presentaciones del usuario'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g. exportar) for saving user work, so routing is left partly inferential.

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