Configurar los criterios de alerta

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

Annotations declare this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses that every change is broadcast to configured channels with before/after values, that destinations are deliberately left untouched, and that partial updates preserve unchanged criteria.

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-loads the core purpose and enumerated fields, then adds the reset and notification semantics. Two dense but purposeful paragraphs with no filler sentences.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0 required parameters, the description covers the important gaps: partial-update behavior, the reset path, notification side effects, and what is not affected. Annotations plus the schema fill in the rest, so an agent has enough to invoke it 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 description coverage is 88%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters with their ranges and defaults. The description reinforces several fields (palabras, excluidas, regiones, presupuesto, todas_en_region) but adds little syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema already states, matching the baseline 3.

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 ("Cambia") and resource ("qué procesos alerta la vigilancia") and enumerates the exact fields it controls. An agent can distinguish this configuration tool from siblings like activar_vigilancia or estado_vigilancia without opening the schema.

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 clarifies partial-update semantics ("Lo que no se indica queda como estaba") and the reset behavior of restablecer, which is practical usage context. However, it names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions versus the many sibling tools, leaving the routing decision implicit.

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