update_dda_measure_status

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds a list of updateable fields, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not describe permissions, side effects, validation rules, or concurrency behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but limited.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and the fields affected. Though terse, conciseness is not the source of its gaps.

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 11 parameters at 0% schema description coverage and a mutation operation, the description is not complete enough for confident invocation. Output schema and annotations reduce some burden, but the description leaves required identifiers, optional fields, and update semantics largely unexplained.

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% and there are 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It names several update targets (estado, responsable, evidencias, excepciones, fechas), but omits key required identifiers such as record_id and code, and does not explain justification, surveillance_measures, compensatory_measures, or date formats/constraints. It adds some meaning but falls well short for an 11-parameter schema.

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 ('Actualiza') and resource ('una medida'), and lists several updateable fields: status, owner, evidence, exceptions, and dates. It is clear what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, but the purpose is still evident.

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 description only implies that this tool is used for updating a measure. It provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives such as create_dda or get_measure. The agent must infer usage context entirely.

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