parse_increment_field

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

With no annotations, the description discloses atomicity, negative values for decrement, and the default amount. However, it does not specify behavior for missing fields, type constraints, or return values. It provides some behavioral context but is not thorough.

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?

The description is two short sentences in Spanish, front-loading the core functionality. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is a simple mutation but lacks annotations and output schema. The description gives core semantics but misses edge cases and return behavior. Given the complexity and available schema, the description is minimally complete but has gaps.

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?

The description only mentions 'amount' and its default, while the other parameters (className, objectId, fieldName) are not addressed. The input schema itself contains descriptions, but the description does not compensate for the 0% coverage signal.

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 clearly states the tool's function: increment or decrement a numeric field atomically, with examples (counters, scores). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like parse_update_object or parse_add_to_array.

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 description provides clear usage context ('útil para contadores, puntuaciones'), indicating suitable scenarios, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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