transicion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose one important behavior: automatica=true advances the slide on its own after the delay. It does not say whether existing transitions are overwritten, whether this is per-slide mutation, or what permissions/context are required.

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?

Three short sentences, leading with the core concept and then the special-case effect and the auto-advance flag. The condensed phrasing ('Con automatica=true avanza sola tras el retraso') is terse but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the headline behavior and one effect's preconditions, but leaves gaps: replacement semantics, per-slide scope, and the meaning of duracion/retraso bounds are not addressed.

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% with retraso/duracion/automatica lacking in-schema descriptions. The description compensates for automatica (auto-advance after retraso) and hints at the magic-move effect, but adds nothing about duracion units/limits or the large efecto enum beyond one value.

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 the resource (the transition from this slide to the next) and the key effect, 'magic move', plus what automatica does. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like animar_cambio or revelar_por_pasos, though it never states outright that the tool *sets* the transition (it only describes the transition concept).

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?

It gives a concrete precondition for the 'magic move' effect (duplicate the slide and move objects with duplicar_diapositiva/mover_objeto), which is genuinely useful routing guidance. However, there is no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance relative to the animation-related siblings, and no note on whether setting a transition replaces an existing one.

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