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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the state change is reversible via resolved=false, and 'No toca la red' clarifies no message is sent to the user. It stops short of describing the response or whether resolution is visible to the commenter.

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?

One compact sentence chain: purpose first, then the effect, then the reverse toggle, then the network caveat. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly, including reversibility. The only gap is what 'atendido' state looks like on return or whether it is observable to the comment author.

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 50%, with comment_ref documented but resolved left bare apart from a default. The description compensates by explaining exactly what resolved=false does, which is the key semantic the schema omits.

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 and resource ('Marca un comentario ... como atendido en PilotControl') and anchors the input to a sibling ('un comentario de list_comments'). The clause 'sin responderlo' separates it from reply_to_comment, so an agent can pick it without opening any 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?

Gives a clear condition for use: clearing a comment out of Pendientes without replying to it, and notes that resolved=false puts it back. It implicitly contrasts with reply_to_comment but never names that sibling as the alternative when a response is actually wanted.

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