[EXPERIMENTAL] Guardar Borrador de Tarea en EVA

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is structured. The description adds the material context of a required physical confirmation on Canal B, but does not say whether an existing draft is overwritten, what happens to prior submissions, or what a successful response looks like. Given the annotations carry part of the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentences: the verb and mode are front-loaded, and the confirmation requirement follows. The '[EXPERIMENTAL]' prefix duplicates the title, but the body is waste-free. Nothing important is buried at the end.

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 destructive, non-idempotent write tool this is thin. No output schema exists, so the description should still address what state change results and how the draft relates to any existing delivery, and 'Canal B' is unexplained jargon. The annotations and full schema coverage carry the rest, so it is 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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters documented inline, including max lengths and the cmid meaning, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies that file or inline text are the two upload modes. It adds no format or mutual-exclusivity rules beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: uploading a file or text to EVA Moodle as an editable draft. That is clearly distinct from read-only siblings such as eva_tareas_y_notas or eva_leer_archivo. It stops short of naming the upload case that would separate it from other write tools like eva_responder_foro.

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?

It discloses one prerequisite, 'Requiere confirmación física en Canal B', which tells the agent that a human confirmation step is needed before calling. It never says when to prefer this over alternatives, nor when to use ruta_archivo versus texto_en_linea. Usage is only implied by the draft-upload framing.

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