canvas_post_to_discussion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Post a message') which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the post is editable/deletable, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after posting (e.g., returns a post ID, confirmation message, or error details), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects. Given the complexity of a write operation in an educational context, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (course_id, topic_id, message) with basic descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameter usage, relationships, or constraints beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Post a message') and target resource ('to a discussion topic'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'canvas_create_conversation' or 'canvas_list_discussion_topics', which would require mentioning this is specifically for posting within existing discussion topics rather than creating new conversations or listing topics.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing discussion topic), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'canvas_create_conversation' for direct messaging or 'canvas_list_discussion_topics' for viewing discussions. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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