poner_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 implies mutation and explains the bullet-per-line behavior for 'cuerpo', which is useful, but it does not say whether supplying 'titulo'/'cuerpo' overwrites existing content, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the target slide has no matching placeholder. Those are significant gaps for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 core action and then qualifies it with the three modes; every clause adds information. It is slightly overloaded with parentheticals, but nothing is redundant.

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 6-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main modes but omits key operational facts: that at least one of titulo/cuerpo/reemplazar/nuevo_cuadro must be supplied, overwrite semantics, and units for the new text box dimensions. An agent can attempt a call but may guess wrong on these points.

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 33%, but the description compensates well: 'cuerpo' is defined as bullet-per-line text, 'reemplazar' entries are tied to the tipo/indice pairs reported by leer_presentacion, and 'nuevo_cuadro' coordinates are stated to be in points. The remaining gap is that alto/ancho units and the semantics of the 'tipo' enum ('texto' vs 'figura') are left implicit.

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+resource ('Escribe texto en una diapositiva') and then enumerates the three distinct operations it can perform: filling the layout's title/body, replacing existing object text, and/or adding a new text box. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like estilo_texto (formatting) or buscar_reemplazar (search/replace across the deck) without opening any 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?

The 'y/o' phrasing makes clear the three modes can be combined in one call, and it explicitly points to leer_presentacion (with detail) as the source of the 'tipo' and 'indice' values needed for replacement — a concrete prerequisite. It stops short of naming when to prefer an alternative (e.g. estilo_texto or crear_con_formato), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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