spv_request_prepare

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the transparency burden and discloses that this step returns requestId/channel and that the eventual answer arrives later in listaMesaje and is archived. It also reveals the two-channel behavior (ws vs web) and the need for the agent to follow up, though it doesn't explicitly mention side effects like creating a persistent record.

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 dense paragraph but front-loads the core purpose and return values before describing the channel flow. It contains necessary workflow details without excessive filler, though it could be split into clearer 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?

It provides a complete picture of the prepare step's role in the larger flow, including the next tool to call and the late arrival of the answer document. Since there is no output schema, mentioning requestId and channel is important; error handling isn't described but the reference to validation implies it.

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 high and descriptions already cover type/companyId and give the params key list; the tool description adds little beyond pointing to spv_request_types and noting types like C168/certificates/decisions that need web. It does not explain the meaning of individual dynamic param keys, so semantics remain at baseline.

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 clearly states this is 'Step 1 of an SPV request' and identifies the action as validating type/parameters and returning a requestId and channel. It uses specific verbs and names the resource (SPV request), distinguishing it from the later agent-result step.

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 explains the intended sequence ('Step 1', 'Relay the answer with spv_request_agent_result') and describes when the 'web' channel is used ('for types the web service lacks'). It references spv_request_types for valid types, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with list/delete siblings, so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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