Encender o apagar la vigilancia

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

Annotations only declare it is a mutation, idempotent and open-world. The description goes well beyond that: which mode installs nothing on the machine, which one creates a Windows task, which one changes system configuration and writes the ticket to a user-folder file, and the explicit user-consent requirement before passing confirmo=true. No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then structured bullets per mode, ending with the criteria caveat. It is longer than average but every line carries operational weight for a high-stakes system change; only slight trimming is possible.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the mutation semantics, the consent prerequisite, the side effects per mode, and the dependency on configurar_criterios. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 100% and the enum descriptions are thin ('Dónde corre la vigilancia'), so the description adds real meaning: it explains what each enum value actually does and clarifies that confirmo is only valid for «siempre» and only after an explicit yes. It goes past the schema without restating it.

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 (encender/apagar) and resource (vigilancia de compras nuevas), then names all three modes with distinct behavior. An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs from siblings like estado_vigilancia or configurar_criterios.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance per mode: «con_claude» is 'recomendado para empezar', «siempre» requires explaining the system change and an explicit 'sí', «apagar» stops it. It also routes the agent to the sibling configurar_criterios and warns to review default criteria first.

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