uned_guardar_apunte

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful side effect beyond writing a file: the note is also linked into 'la ficha' (i.e., it mutates another resource). However, it says nothing about overwrite behavior, permissions, or failure modes, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and packs in format, location, and the linking side effect with no wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. Still, for a mutation tool with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description omits overwrite/error behavior and leaves one of three parameters undefined, which is only marginally sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'asignatura' is revealed as a directory segment in the path and 'contenido' is framed as Markdown study content. But 'nombre' is never explained (filename vs. title) and no formats or constraints are given.

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 (Guarda) plus the resource (resumen, esquema, test o apunte en Markdown) and even the storage path convention (<asignatura>/apuntes/). It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like uned_materiales or uned_leer.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent must infer from context that this is for persisting study notes rather than reading or fetching existing materials.

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