Crear enlace de captura

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

Far exceeds the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), which only flag that this is a non-idempotent write. The description discloses the 15-minute open window, the 15-minute capture window, that data bypasses the conversation and goes to the configured destination, the cost model (free to create, 1 token per capture, refunded on failure), and the 20-live-link cap.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, and each following sentence carries a distinct operational fact (expiry, routing, cost, quota, return values). No sentence restates another or wastes space despite the density.

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, the description correctly supplies the return fields (url, expiresAt) and warns the url is shareable only with the client. Combined with limits, cost, and delivery routing, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining what destination_id actually does (routes to webhook, email, or Telegram configured in the panel) and noting the returned url/expiresAt. It does not add format detail for reference or require_back, but the schema covers those adequately.

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 resource (creates a one-time capture link) and immediately explains the mechanism: a client photographs their INE/passport from their phone. This is clearly distinguishable from the siblings extraer_ine (which performs extraction) and consultar_saldo (which checks balance), since this tool only mints the link.

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?

Implies the use case well: the client captures remotely and the data is routed to destination_id rather than into the conversation, which tells an agent when this is the right tool. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with extraer_ine or states when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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