tarjetas_numeradas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that the tool mutates the presentation, whether it appends to or replaces existing slide content, what happens on a slide with existing objects, or whether the slide must already exist — all critical for a write operation 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 card count and format before detailing header and body. No filler, though the phrase is compressed enough that the creation verb itself is only implicit.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain positioning behavior and mutation effects; it explains neither. An agent knows what the cards look like but not how placement defaults work or what the call changes on the slide.

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 43%: only documento, diapositiva and x are documented, leaving y, alto and ancho (all optional positioning geometry) undescribed in both schema and description. The description does enrich the tarjetas item semantics (header short, in title typeface/accent color, text below), which goes beyond the bare string schema, but the geometry gap is not compensated.

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 concretely describes the output: a row of 2–4 cards with a short header rendered in the title typeface/accent color and body text below. An agent can picture the artifact it produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling cifras_destacadas (highlighted figures), whose content ('un número, una cifra') it explicitly overlaps with.

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 only implied by the parenthetical content examples ('resúmenes, preguntas, mensajes'), which suggest suitable material. There is no statement of when to prefer this over cifras_destacadas, diapositiva_contenido or agenda, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the presentation must be open).

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