insertar_medio

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result is cardless, that height is derived from the file's aspect ratio, and that the source file is only read — but it says nothing about whether the slide must already exist, what happens on unsupported formats, or what object is created.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler: formats first, the sibling exclusion second, the aspect-ratio behavior last. Nothing is repeated from the schema or the name.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, formats, aspect ratio and one exclusion. It does not cover positioning behavior, defaults for the optional x/y/ancho, or what the call yields, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 63%, so the schema documents roughly half the parameters. The description adds genuine value by explaining why there is no height parameter ('El alto sigue la proporción del archivo') and by constraining archivo to image/video/audio formats, but it says nothing about x/y positioning or ancho semantics.

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 ('Inserta') plus the exact resources handled (imagen, video, audio) and the target container (una diapositiva), and enumerates accepted video extensions. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling diapositiva_figura, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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 an explicit exclusion and the alternative to use instead ('sin tarjeta … usa diapositiva_figura'), which is real routing guidance. It leaves one obvious ambiguity unaddressed: the sibling diapositiva_video is never mentioned, so when to prefer this tool over that one must be inferred.

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