Varias operaciones en una

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses that execution stops at the first error and reports which one, plus the single-history-step grouping. It does not say whether already-applied steps persist on failure, whether the batch is atomic/undoable as one unit, or how the failure is reported back.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior, then the element format, then the use case and error semantics. The long tool enumeration is necessary rather than filler, though the single dense paragraph is slightly hard to scan.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with a nested steps array, the description covers element format, allowed tools, use case, and failure behavior. Remaining gaps are partial-failure/rollback semantics and what the tool returns, which matter for a multi-mutation batch.

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 schema's 'steps[].tool' is a bare string with no enum. The description compensates substantially by enumerating the accepted tool values and stating that args use the same parameters as ps_<tool>, which is the key mapping an agent needs.

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 and scope: it runs multiple tools in order and collapses them into ONE history step. The enumerated tool list and the '{tool, args}' element shape make it unmistakable versus the individual ps_<tool> siblings.

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?

"Ideal para armar una composición completa" gives a clear usage context, and the tool list implies the alternative (calling each ps_ tool separately). It never states when NOT to use it, e.g. when later steps need results from earlier ones.

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