Borrar juego

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by stating the deletion is irreversible and that it is scoped to a classroom team, but it does not say what happens to attached student attempts/results or whether any confirmation is required.

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 sentence with the critical constraints front-loaded in the bracket tag (audience scope, irreversibility). Nothing is wasted, though the bracketed metadata could have been folded more explicitly into the sentence.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is adequate. It still leaves out the consequence detail an agent would want before calling an irreversible delete, such as what data is destroyed alongside the game.

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 100% (both UUIDs documented as "Juego" and "Aula"), so the baseline is 3. The phrase "de una lección" hints that the game belongs to a lesson context, but no extra format, ownership, or cross-parameter meaning is added.

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?

"Borra un juego interactivo de una lección" gives a specific verb (Borra) and a specific resource scoped to a lesson, which separates it from get_game and save_game in the sibling list. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never points to alternatives (get_game to inspect first, save_game to modify instead). The only usage signal is the bracketed "irreversible" warning, which is a caution rather than routing guidance.

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