corregir_respuesta

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool records the attempt, which is a meaningful side effect, but it does not explain whether the correction is reversible, what permissions are needed, or how the correction is reported.

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?

The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and includes a key side effect. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and broader context. It does not mention what the tool returns or how the correction is presented to the student, leaving the tool's full behavior underspecified.

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?

The input schema has zero parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It implies 'respuesta' is the student's answer and 'item' relates to the book key, but 'item' is never explicitly defined, leaving ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb 'Corrige' and identifies the resource ('la clave del libro') and a side effect ('registra el intento'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like comprobar_escucha and comprobar_pronunciacion, which target specific modalities.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions for use or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts from the sibling list.

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