Post Discussion Reply

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds critical behavioral disclosure: the reply is immediately visible to the whole class and instructor, and it cannot be deleted from here. This clearly communicates the irreversible, public nature of the action, adding value beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the function and consequence, then adding a required user-confirmation step. There is no filler or redundancy, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the core behavior, irreversibility, and required confirmation step. It leverages the schema for parameter details and the output schema for return values, so no additional explanation is needed. It lacks only minor contextual details like prerequisites, but is otherwise complete.

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?

All four parameters are fully documented in the input schema, including the optional parent_entry_id and the HTML-allowed message. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level detail, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the specific action of posting a reply to a course discussion and emphasizes the public, immediate visibility to the class and instructor. This distinguishes it from read-only sibling tools like read_discussion. The phrase 'under the user's own name' adds precise context.

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 a clear usage guideline: show the user the exact text and get confirmation before calling. This is an explicit precondition for use. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context of public posting vs. read-only discussion tools is clear enough to infer appropriate use.

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