forum_post_topic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the critical behavioral fact an agent would otherwise miss: that writes are disabled server-side and confirm: true does not publish. That directly counters the false expectation created by the 'post' verb. It stops short of describing what the preview returns or how validation failures surface.

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 gating constraint is front-loaded and the confirm caveat follows immediately, so the most important information is read first.

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 five-parameter, fully documented, non-destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the one fact an agent could get wrong (that confirm: true does not publish). What the preview actually returns or how invalid input is reported is left implicit, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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%, including a detailed explanation of the confirm flag that mirrors the tool description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for course_id, forum_id, subject, or message, 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 pair and resource: 'Valida y previsualiza un tema de foro'. It also resolves the ambiguity created by the tool name (forum_post_topic) by clarifying that posting is disabled, so the agent understands this is a validation/preview operation. It does not explicitly contrast with forum_reply, but the resource (topic vs. reply) is distinguishable from siblings.

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 establishes the usage context (preview only, publishing blocked pending independent human approval), which is a meaningful when-to-use signal. However, it never states an explicit alternative or next step for actually publishing, nor when to prefer this over forum_reply or get_forum_discussions. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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