Comentar una idea

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the target idea is public (so the comment is publicly visible) and mentions the thread context, but says nothing about permissions, moderation, or edit/delete behavior for a posted comment.

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 purpose, then usage routing, then the size limit. Nothing is padded, though the trailing character-limit sentence duplicates what the schema already enforces.

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 small two-parameter write tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, the relevant sibling alternative, and the size cap. Missing prerequisites (auth, whether the idea must belong to the caller) are minor given the low complexity.

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 100% and both parameters (id, texto) are documented in the schema, including the 24-hex-char id format and the maxLength/minLength bounds. The description's 'Máximo 1000 caracteres' merely repeats the schema constraint, adding no new parameter meaning, 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 and resource ('Comenta una idea pública concreta') and clarifies it operates on an existing idea's thread, which separates it from the create-a-new-idea siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with publicar_idea or publicar_bisociacion, but the 'idea existente' scope makes the distinction inferable.

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 clear context ('responder en el hilo de una idea existente') and names the right alternative for the adjacent read task ('usa leer_idea para ver sus comentarios'). No when-not conditions are given, but the routing to leer_idea is the only alternative an agent realistically needs.

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