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

Annotations already declare a destructive, idempotent, non-read-only mutation, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the semantic of the destructive toggle (pausing vs resuming the bot), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, or whether changes are reversible — a meaningful omission for a destructive patch 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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb-resource pair and immediately qualifies it with the rule_id source and the two most important toggles. No filler or restatement of the tool 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?

Covers the core edit and the pause/resume case, but for a 7-parameter destructive tool with only 1 required field it never states that this is a partial update, nor what happens to the parameters the caller omits. Nothing is said about the result of the call either, though no output schema exists to cover that.

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 only 43%, and the description compensates by giving meaning to the otherwise undocumented parameters: active is explicitly defined as pause (false) / resume (true), and tone, criteria (content_filter/response_level) and instructions are named as the editable knobs. It leaves rule_id's uuid nature and brand_id unexplained, but brand_id already carries a schema description.

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 ("Cambia") and a specific resource ("una regla del bot de comentarios") and points to list_comment_bots as the source of rule_id, which separates it from create_comment_bot and list_comment_bots. It does not distinguish itself from set_post_comment_bot, which also touches comment-bot configuration, so an agent could still hesitate between the two.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the active=false/true phrasing makes the pause/resume use case obvious and the mention of tone/criteria/instructions signals an edit-in-place tool. However, there is no explicit "use this instead of X" and no prerequisite or when-not-to-use guidance relative to create_comment_bot or set_post_comment_bot.

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