Añadir criterios a la rúbrica

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the edit-permission prerequisite and the team scope, but does not say whether the criteria are appended to or replace the existing rubric, nor what happens after insertion.

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 front-loaded sentence with a bracketed context tag and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a nested-array mutation.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema and a nested criteria array (up to 20 items with label/topic/weight/if_met/if_missed). The description omits merge-vs-replace behavior, item limits, and any failure modes, leaving real gaps an agent would need before calling it.

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 coverage is 67% (below the 80% threshold), so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only clarifies that 'criteria' are self-evaluation rubric criteria, while saying nothing about the required classroom_id/scenario_id pairing or the 1-20 item array with weights and feedback messages.

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 names a specific verb ('Añade') and resource ('criterios de autoevaluación a un escenario'), which is clear enough to act on. However, it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling save_scenario_criterion (singular), so an agent cannot tell from the description whether this is a bulk/plural operation or how it differs.

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 clause 'de un curso que puedes editar' implies an authorization prerequisite for the edit, and the '[Equipo del aula]' tag hints at the classroom-team context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to save_scenario_criterion or update_scenario as alternatives.

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