quitar_inyeccion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the most consequential trait — that omitting nombre_bloque removes ALL injected blocks, i.e. a destructive default — which is genuinely valuable. However, it says nothing about whether index.htm is modified in place, whether a backup is made, what happens if the named block is absent, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and the default-behavior caveat in a parenthetical. Every clause carries information; nothing is 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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the critical default but leaves return values, error cases, and side effects on the export folder unspecified. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 50%: ruta_export is documented in the schema, but nombre_bloque has no schema description. The description compensates directly by explaining that nombre_bloque selects a single block and that its absence means all blocks are removed, which is exactly the meaning 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?

The description states a concrete verb (quita) and a concrete resource (un bloque inyectado del index.htm), which is enough for an agent to distinguish this from write-side siblings like inyectar_en_export. It does not name the inverse tool explicitly, so sibling routing is inferred rather than stated.

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 context is implied: this is the removal operation for blocks previously injected into a 3DVista HTML5 export. The parenthetical gives the important branch condition (omit nombre_bloque to remove everything), but there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling performs the opposite action.

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