ocultar_diapositiva

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the key effect (hidden slides are neither presented nor exported) and implies reversibility through 'vuelve a mostrar', but it says nothing about what the tool returns, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens with an out-of-range slide number.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the action comes first and the consequence second, so the agent gets purpose and effect immediately.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and visible effect but leaves gaps around return value and error behavior. It is adequate for a simple toggle but not 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 coverage is 67%: documento and diapositiva are already documented in the schema, but ocultar is not described there. The toggle phrasing 'Oculta o vuelve a mostrar' indirectly conveys the boolean's meaning, yet the default of true and the false-branch behavior are never stated explicitly.

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 (diapositiva) and a toggle action (ocultar / volver a mostrar), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearest sibling, borrar_diapositiva, so an agent must infer the hide-vs-delete boundary from the effect clause rather than being told.

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?

The clause 'Las ocultas no se presentan ni se exportan' implies the use case (removing a slide from a presentation/export without deleting it), but no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-delete guidance or named alternative is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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