Guardar el perfil

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

Annotations indicate this is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations by specifying partial-update semantics: passed fields are updated and 'el resto queda como está'. This clarifies the merge behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first clause, and the field enumeration is dense but organized through nested braces. It is long because it documents a complex object, though line breaks or a list format would improve readability.

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?

Given the opaque schema, nested objects, and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete: every field, nested subfield, and allowed value is specified. An agent has enough information to construct a valid perfil object without opening other references.

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 input schema provides almost no information: perfil is just an object with additionalProperties true and 0% schema coverage. The description fully compensates by listing all accepted keys, nested object structures, allowed enum values, and even null semantics for punto_venta_prod_comunes.

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: 'Actualiza perfil.json con los campos que se pasen'. It clearly distinguishes this write/update operation from sibling read tools like ver_perfil, and it enumerates the exact fields involved.

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 implies usage: it is the tool for persisting profile settings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the partial-update behavior.

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