actualites_commenter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — that the operation is gated on the school permitting comments — but says nothing about failure behavior when comments are disabled or whether the comment is attributed to the caller.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the action and its precondition come first, the validation requirement second. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the action, the authorization precondition, and a confirmation step. It falls short only on error/permission-denied behavior and on how the new comment is returned or identified.

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 50%: 'texte' is documented in the schema as plain text, while 'id' has no description at all. The phrase 'sous une actualité' weakly implies that id is the news-item identifier, but the description adds no format, type, or validity detail beyond that inference, so the baseline of 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+resource pair ('Publie un commentaire sous une actualité'), which cleanly separates it from actualites_lire and actualites_lister. It does not name or contrast with the analogous sibling blog_commenter, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

The parenthetical 'si l'école autorise les commentaires' gives a real applicability precondition, and 'Faire valider le texte par l'utilisateur' prescribes a workflow step. However, no alternatives (e.g. blog_commenter for blogs) or explicit when-not guidance are offered, leaving usage largely implied.

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