Guardar un certificado de ARCA

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

Annotations already cover idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly adds behavioral context: it verifies the certificate is not a CSR, checks the environment, and ensures it corresponds to the key before saving. This is valuable beyond annotations, though it doesn't describe failure behavior, which is acceptable given the safe profile.

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, dense sentence with a colon separating the main action and verification from environment-specific instructions. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no filler, making it efficient and perfectly sized.

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 description covers everything an agent needs to call the tool correctly: the verification prerequisites, the required `entorno`, and which optional parameter to use in each case. With no output schema and safe annotations, no critical information is missing.

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 fully compensates: it explains `certificado` for homologación (text from WSASS, from -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----) and `ruta` for producción (path to .crt). It also implies `entorno` values via the Homologación/Producción mapping. No parameter meaning is left 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 the exact purpose: 'Guarda el certificado que dio ARCA' (saves the certificate given by ARCA), and distinguishes it from CSR handling ('no el CSR') and clarifies it is for the correct environment and key. This clearly separates it from siblings like ver_csr (view CSR) and guardar_perfil (save profile), so an agent can identify when to use it.

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 provides explicit usage instructions: for homologación use the `certificado` parameter, for producción use `ruta`, and only after verifying it is a certificate (not a CSR) and matches the key. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and implies alternatives (e.g., not for CSR).

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