suite_instalar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that writing is conditional on escribir=True and that a doctor status is returned, but it largely repeats the schema's parameter note and says nothing about what happens to pre-existing config beyond the schema's '(con respaldo)' hint.

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 with the core action front-loaded, followed by the terminal equivalence. No filler, though it packs a lot into one line.

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 2-parameter write tool with no output schema and covering annotations, the description explains detection, conditional writing, and the returned doctor state adequately. Minor gap: it doesn't describe the shape of the doctor status it returns.

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 100%, so both parameters (carpeta, escribir) are already documented. The description only restates escribir=True semantics, which is redundant with the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('deja el harness configurado y verificado'), enumerates the harnesses it detects, and describes the write + doctor-return flow. It clearly reads as an installer, distinguishable from siblings like suite_doctor or suite_auto_update, though it never names those siblings 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 the 'openlegal instalar' equivalence and the one-step framing, giving the agent enough to know this is the setup/install action. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus suite_doctor or suite_auto_update, and no stated preconditions or exclusions.

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