inapi_cease_and_desist

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, and it discloses little. It does not say the tool only drafts (and does not send or file the letter), whether it requires any party/authorization data, or what the produced document looks like. For a no-annotation generation tool this is a meaningful gap.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No filler, nothing to trim.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should have clarified the return (e.g. the drafted letter text) and the drafting-only scope. It is minimally adequate given complete parameter documentation, but leaves the output contract unstated.

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?

All four parameters are required and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains titular, infractor, marca_afectada, and hechos_infraccion. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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 ('Redacta') and a concrete resource ('carta formal de Cese y Desistimiento'), plus the two legal bases (Ley 19.039 marca, Ley 17.336 propiedad intelectual). The purpose is clear, though it never names a sibling (e.g. inapi_evaluar_marca) to sharpen boundaries against similar INAPI-branded tools.

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 dual legal grounds (trademark vs. intellectual property) imply when the letter applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Usage must be inferred from the resource name.

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