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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds only the AI-key prerequisite. It never discloses the actual consequence of the call — that a bot will begin answering public comments on a live post — nor what existing configuration is destroyed or what the limits are. For a destructive, public-facing activation this is a meaningful disclosure gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, no filler. The parenthetical "(o en una sola red)" is slightly awkward but functional, and the prerequisite is correctly placed last as a gate.

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 six parameters, a nested target array, no output schema and destructive semantics, the definition covers intent and prerequisites but not outcome. An agent still cannot tell what a successful call produces, whether prior bot settings are overwritten, or what happens to comments already awaiting a reply.

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 sits at 50%. The description does real work by naming the four required target fields and their source tools, which the schema does not explain. It says nothing about tone, content_filter or how targets combine up to the 20-item cap, so half the surface is left to the 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 gives a concrete verb+object ("prende el bot de comentarios") and scopes it to posts made outside PilotControl or to a single network, which distinguishes it from the in-product bot siblings. It never names set_post_comment_bot or update_comment_bot explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 states the applicable context (external posts / single network) and a hard prerequisite (the AI key must be configured in PilotControl). It also points to where the identifying data can be obtained (list_comments, get_account_stats). It stops short of an explicit "if the post lives in PilotControl, use X instead" exclusion.

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