Update forum post

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

Annotations already indicate this is mutating but not destructive. The description adds context by specifying what can be changed (e.g., "lock or unlock replies", "pin or unpin"), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility of archiving, or behavior when fields are omitted.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists all key actions without any filler. Every phrase conveys meaningful information about what the tool does, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description provides a useful overview of the tool's operations but lacks some essential details. It does not explain how fields interact (e.g., whether omitted fields remain unchanged), the exact meaning of 'archive' beyond the verb, or the need to specify the post identifier (which is covered by the schema's description). Enough to get started, but not fully complete for complex update scenarios.

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 coverage is only 43%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies title, tags, pin/unpin, lock/unlock, and archive, adding meaning to the boolean parameters. However, it misses the required 'post' parameter and 'guild' parameter (though these are already described in the schema), and it does not explicitly explain that tags replace the existing set. Partial compensation for low schema 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 uses a specific verb "Edit" and names the resource "forum post", then enumerates the exact editable aspects (title, tags, pin, lock, archive). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like reply_to_forum_post, delete_forum_post, or create_forum_post.

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 makes the intended use context clear by listing the operations, so an agent knows to use this when modifying a forum post's title, tags, pin state, lock state, or archive status. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough to avoid confusion.

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