save_mass_marketing_config

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

The description only indicates the tool is a mutation via the '[mutation]' tag. No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, permission requirements, side effects, or whether existing configuration is overwritten. Without annotations, the description should provide more context for a mutation tool.

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 short but contains redundancy: 'Guardar configuracion de marketing masivo' appears twice. The '[mutation]' tag is a useful structuring element. Overall, it is concise but could be tighter without repeating the resource name.

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?

The description lacks important context such as return values (e.g., success/error message) and whether the tool creates or updates the config. Given no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. The sibling 'get_mass_marketing_config' exists but is not referenced.

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 100%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema. The tool description adds high-level categories (auto-response, translation, sending options) but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool saves mass marketing configuration, listing specific categories (auto-response, translation, sending options). It uses the verb 'Guardar' and tags '[mutation]' to indicate a write operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_mass_marketing_config' or other save tools, though the resource is clearly different.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't clarify whether this tool is for both creating and updating the config, or if it overwrites existing settings.

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