revelar_series

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses two non-obvious behaviors: Magic Move between slide copies (implying slide duplication) and axis rescaling between steps because the max can't be fixed by script. It omits how many slides are created, reversibility, and auth/permission needs, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation-style tool.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core concept and then the type/axis caveat. Efficient and waste-free, though the parenthetical is slightly technical.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations at 40% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It conveys the key concept and one limitation but leaves placement, category handling, and duration behavior unexplained.

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% across 10 parameters. The description clarifies 'tipo' options and 'series' semantics, but says nothing about placement (x/y/alto/ancho), 'categorias', or 'duracion', leaving several undocumented parameters to the schema alone.

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: an animated chart where series enter one by one via Magic Move, restricted to bar/line/area types. This clearly separates it from static chart siblings like 'grafica' or 'grafica_cientifica', though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'series entran una por una' and the type restriction, so an agent can infer it's for sequential series reveal. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as revelar_por_pasos or grafica.

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