Post Group Discussion

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the bar is lower, but the description adds the mitigation protocol the annotations cannot express: irreversible, requires a dry-run first. It also discloses the audience/side effect (groupmates and instructors see it). It stops short of stating permission requirements or what the preview returns, which would earn a 5.

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 compact sentences with zero waste: what it does, who sees it, and the mandatory safety workflow, with the irreversible warning front-loaded in brackets so it is not skimmed past.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, audience, and the confirm workflow adequately. Minor gaps remain: no mention of required permissions or whether the preview returns the rendered message.

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%; every parameter (including the confirm dry-run semantics and ID provenance via list_my_groups/list_topics) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 ('post') and resource ('discussion inside a group workspace') and adds audience scope ('visible to your groupmates and instructors'). It implicitly contrasts with course-discussion siblings like post_entry/reply_to_entry via the 'group workspace' qualifier, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 does give an actionable invocation path ('call without confirm=true first to preview, then re-call with confirm=true'), which is real procedural guidance. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this over post_entry/reply_to_entry, i.e. group discussion vs course discussion or new topic vs reply.

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