create_topic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only repeats the creation operation and parameter hints. It does not mention authentication, side effects, return values, failure behavior, or the fact that this is a mutating action that could create public content.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with a terse supplementary note about parameter sources. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant 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?

The essential invocation data—required params and the source of `category_id`—is present, and the schema covers parameter details. However, there is no output schema and no description of what the API returns or what happens after creation, leaving the agent without guidance on expected results or possible side effects.

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 well. The description adds only a lightweight restatement that `raw` is Markdown and that `category_id` should be obtained from `get_site_info`, which matches the schema rather than meaningfully extending it.

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 opens with the specific verb+resource pair 'Create a new topic,' making the tool's purpose immediately unambiguous. It also clarifies that `raw` is Markdown and that `category_id` comes from `get_site_info`, which reinforces the resource context and differentiates it from reply/private-message tools.

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 phrase 'Create a new topic' clearly signals the primary use case, and the instruction 'category_id from get_site_info' provides a concrete prerequisite for invocation. It does not explicitly call out exclusions or compare with siblings like `reply_to_topic`, but the guidance is clear enough for the intended use.

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