aula_forum_edit_post

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the prior message is fully replaced (not merged), the editability window is time-limited and discoverable via `acciones`, and a user confirmation is required first. It does not describe what an error looks like when the window has expired, but the mutation semantics are well disclosed.

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 tight sentences with no filler: capability and replacement scope first, then the precondition and the confirmation requirement. Every clause is actionable.

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 destructive mutation with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers what changes, when it is permitted, and that confirmation is required — enough to call it correctly. Only the failure mode after the edit window lapses and any alternative path are left unstated.

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%, so all four parameters (id, asunto, mensaje, direccion) are already documented with examples. The description only echoes the schema's replacement semantics for `mensaje` and adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 ('Edita una publicación propia de un foro') plus the key scope detail that it replaces the whole message, which implicitly separates it from aula_forum_post and aula_forum_delete_post. It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.

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 concrete precondition ('Solo se puede si la publicación tiene "editar" en `acciones`') and explains why it may fail (Moodle only allows edits for a limited time). It also mandates a confirm-with-user step before calling. It stops short of naming an alternative action (e.g. delete-and-repost) when the edit window has closed.

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