create_followup

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. It merely states the action without revealing side effects, authentication requirements, irreversibility, or any other behavioral traits beyond what the tool name already implies.

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, clear sentence that conveys the core functionality without any redundant or extraneous information. It is efficiently structured 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 the presence of many sibling tools and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the difference from create_reply, describe expected outcomes, or note any constraints, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema already documents each field.

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 action (create), the resource (follow-up discussion), and the context (existing Piazza post). It is specific enough to distinguish from general post creation, though it does not explicitly differentiate from create_reply or other sibling 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_reply or create_post. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., post must exist) or contextual scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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