Confirmar la emisión

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating action. The description adds the one-time-use nature of the token and the typed number, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not disclose what happens to the draft after emission (e.g., deletion, status change) or whether the operation is reversible. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds some context but not comprehensive behavior.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the usage scope ('Solo para la tarjeta de confirmación') before describing the action, and every word carries meaning. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 destructive tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention the workflow step beyond the vague 'tarjeta de confirmación', lacks prerequisites, and gives no indication of the response or side effects. An agent would struggle to know when to call it and what to expect, making the definition incomplete for safe usage.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It clarifies 'token' as a one-time-use token and 'numero' as the typed number, and 'borrador' implicitly maps to 'borrador_id'. However, it does not provide formats, constraints, or how the parameters relate to the action beyond these hints. It partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions but leaves borrador_id ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'emite el borrador' (issues the draft) with a one-time token and typed number. It also scopes usage to 'Solo para la tarjeta de confirmación' (only for the confirmation card), which hints at a distinct workflow step. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'emitir_en_produccion' or 'cancelar_emision', so it lacks full differentiation.

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 says 'Solo para la tarjeta de confirmación', which implies it is used in a specific confirmation scenario, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, sequence steps, or exclusions. No guidance is provided on when NOT to use it or which sibling to choose instead.

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