Activar o pausar una oferta

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds two genuinely new facts beyond them: the call requires a classroom-admin role, and activation should be confirmed with the person first. It does not say what pausing does to enrolled students or existing purchases, or whether the state change is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences with the role scope and the action front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The confirmation clause is slightly asymmetric in that it applies only to activation, which is a minor structural imprecision rather than padding.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the essentials are present: what changes, under which role, and a confirmation step. It still leaves gaps an agent would want—effect of pausing on students/sales, exact permission requirements, and whether other offer fields are touched.

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%, and the two UUID parameters are described only with bare labels ('Oferta', 'Aula'), leaving the identifier formats to the pattern. The description implies the boolean mapping (active=true activates, false pauses) but never states it, and adds no meaning to classroom_id or offer_id.

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?

States a specific verb pair (activar/pausar) and resource (oferta del aula), plus a role qualifier ([Administrador del aula]) that scopes who can call it. It is clearly distinct from update_offer/delete_offer in intent, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the toggle for an offer's active state and that update_offer is for other fields. The one explicit directive ('Confirma con la persona antes de activarla') is a behavioral caution rather than when-to-use/when-not guidance, and it covers activation but not pausing.

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