aula_forum_post

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

Annotations only say it is a non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write; the description adds the crucial consequence that the post is visible to teachers and classmates and that many receive it by email — an irreversible public side effect not conveyed by any annotation. It also surfaces the API-level preconditions and a mandatory human confirmation step.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and mode split, then preconditions, then the confirmation requirement. Every sentence carries operational information; nothing is padded.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the mode selection, required fields per mode, API-level gating fields, audience/notification consequences, and the confirmation protocol. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: `direccion` is a mode switch (forum address vs discussion address) and, when `respuestaA` is omitted, the reply targets the first post — a default the schema does not document. The rest (asunto required for new threads, respuestaA only when replying) duplicates the schema.

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 ("Publica en un foro del aula virtual") and then splits it into two clearly-defined modes: opening a new thread from a forum address vs replying within a discussion. The behavior is unambiguous, though it never names the sibling tools (aula_forum_edit_post, aula_forum_delete_post) to explicitly rule them out.

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?

Explicitly says which mode applies to which `direccion` type, what is required in each case (`asunto` for new threads), and gives preconditions to verify first: `puedeAbrirHilo` before opening a thread and the presence of "responder" in `acciones` before replying. It also mandates showing the user the intended action and waiting for confirmation, which is a concrete when-to-call rule.

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