start_discussion

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It states the tool opens a GitHub Discussion thread and that others can join, but does not disclose authorization needs, side effects, or outcome details (e.g., returned ID). Adequate but incomplete.

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 efficiently structured with a brief purpose statement and a clean Args list. No extraneous sentences, each line adds value.

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 4 parameters (2 required), no schema descriptions, no annotations, but an output schema (not shown), the description covers all essential aspects: parameter constraints, examples, optionality, and the nature of the output. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. Each parameter gets meaningful details: name_or_slug with example, body with character range, model_name with example values, bot_id with source and purpose. This far exceeds bare schema properties.

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 states the tool starts a new discussion about an AI Dictionary term, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_to_discussion and read_discussion by explicitly marking the action as initiating a new thread.

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 implies use for starting a community discussion but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned despite many sibling tools existing.

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