crear_skin_html

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose two important traits: the output uses no internet resources ('Sin recursos de internet'), and supplying ruta_export triggers an install into index.htm — a write action. It does not say whether an existing index.htm is overwritten or backed up, nor what is returned, which matters for a file-writing tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the capability and its component list, then the offline constraint and the export side effect. Dense but no filler; the parenthetical enumeration is long yet each item corresponds to real output.

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 15-parameter generator with nested objects, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow and the install side effect but omits what the tool returns and what happens to pre-existing files at ruta_export. Adequate, with clear gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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 only 40% across 15 parameters, so the description should compensate more than it does. It implicitly maps several parameters to described components (marca, botones, escenas/grupos, contacto/WhatsApp, auto_segundos, ruta_export), but leaves css_extra, carpeta_salida vs ruta_export distinction, ocultar_componentes_nativos, posicion_barra and textos unexplained.

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 ('Crea') and resource ('skin HTML/CSS/JS completo') and enumerates the concrete components produced (logo, barra de botones, menú de escenas con buscador y grupos, panel info/contacto, WhatsApp, auto-recorrido). An agent knows exactly what artifact results, but nothing in the text distinguishes it from siblings like crear_skin_vts or crear_iconos_svg.

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?

Implied usage is clear from context: build a branded skin, and if ruta_export is supplied it is also installed into index.htm. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over crear_skin_vts or instalar_skin_html, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether an export must already exist, which carpeta_salida covers only implicitly).

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