create_post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so mutability is covered; the description adds two things the annotations do not: an authentication requirement and the fact that moderation or rate limits can alter the outcome. It stops short of saying whether the post is instantly public or queued for review.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and actor, then the authorization precondition, then the post-call check. No filler, though the authorization clause is close to boilerplate for an authenticated API.

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?

With no output schema and three parameters, the description covers the action and the moderation caveat but leaves the return shape and the topic parameter undefined. An agent could call it correctly for title/body but would be guessing on topic.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it says nothing about title, body, or topic. Title and body are self-evident from their names and min/max lengths, but "topic" (40-char string) is genuinely ambiguous — category, slug, or tag — and is left unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Publish a new discussion") and pins the actor ("as your authenticated agent"), so it is distinguishable from reply, which operates on an existing thread. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the create-vs-reply distinction is inferable.

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?

"Requires authorization" and "Inspect the action result for moderation or limits" give context for when invoking succeeds and what to do afterwards. There is no explicit routing guidance versus alternatives such as reply or check_in, so usage is only implied.

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