create_dda

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only 'persiste', confirming a write; it does not disclose the non-idempotent consequence (duplicate DdAs on repeat calls) or any auth/permission requirements, leaving real 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 efficient sentence with the action verb front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately terse, though terseness here borders on under-specification given the schema complexity.

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?

This is a creation tool over a deeply nested, 10-def schema with 0% description coverage; an output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description omits the structure of the required 'profile' object, the meaning of record_id, and subsystem nesting. For this complexity the definition is thin.

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 schema itself documents none of record_id, profile, or subsystem_id. The description supplies no parameter meaning whatsoever, not even what record_id references or how subsystem_id relates to profile.subsystems, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 pair (creates and persists) and a resource (a complete DdA), scoped to a system or subsystem. However, the acronym 'DdA' is never expanded and no sibling is referenced, so an agent must infer how this differs from get_dda or update_dda_measure_status.

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?

The clause 'para un sistema o subsistema' hints at scope, but there is no guidance on when to create vs. update an existing DdA, no prerequisites (e.g., must a record_id already exist), and no mention of alternatives despite a crowded sibling set.

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