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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: enabling requires an AI key to be configured first, and the change propagates to every network of that post at once rather than to a single channel. It stops short of saying whether the previous bot configuration is lost or restorable when turned off.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the prerequisite and the idempotency reminder. No filler, though the operation_id sentence partially duplicates the schema description and could have been dropped or merged.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, it covers the essential operational facts: what changes, on what scope, the blocking prerequisite, and the retry/operation_id convention. Only the post-change response or reversibility of turning the bot off is left unstated, which is minor given the annotation coverage.

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 67%, with post_id and operation_id both documented inline and only the boolean 'enabled' bare. The description adds one real clarification, that the affected scope is all networks of the post, but the operation_id instruction ('un operation_id nuevo por cada cambio') largely restates the schema's own wording, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pair (encender/apagar) and resource (bot de comentarios) with explicit scope: applies to all social networks of an already-published post from PilotControl. An agent can separate it from create_comment_bot or update_comment_bot by the 'on/off switch for an existing post' framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Implies usage context through 'publicación ya publicada' (so a draft/pending post is not a valid target) and states the enabling prerequisite of having the IA key configured in PilotControl. However it never says when to prefer this tool over update_comment_bot, create_comment_bot, or set_conversation_bot, nor when-not to use it.

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