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

It discloses behavior beyond the annotations: it specifies that content is raw markdown, enforces character limits, returns a structured success/error dict, and mentions the staff-only category restriction. Since the annotations only contain false hints and offer no meaningful safety context, the description carries the burden and does so well, though it does not mention authentication requirements or post visibility.

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?

The docstring is well-structured with a one-sentence purpose, a clear Args list, and a Returns section. It is information-dense without being bloated; every sentence either defines a parameter or explains expected outcomes. The layout front-loads the core action and then provides supporting details.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description appropriately includes both success and error return formats. It covers validation and staff-only edge cases, which helps the agent handle failures. It does not mention how to obtain a valid category_slug, making the tool slightly less self-contained, though the error for unknown categories provides a signal.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: category_slug is a 'Slug of the category to post in', title has a 3-200 char limit, and content is 'Raw markdown content' with a 10-10000 char limit. This adds concrete meaning and usage constraints that the input schema alone does not provide.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new forum post.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_forum_reply, which creates a reply. The title 'Forum: Create forum post' reinforces the resource without ambiguity.

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 description implies usage by explaining what the tool does and what arguments are required, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over create_forum_reply or how to discover valid category_slug values. The mention of 'staff-only category' errors hints at one exclusion condition, but there is no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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