create_va_topic

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

The description only adds a redundant '[Write]' tag, which already matches the readOnlyHint=false annotation. No additional behavioral context such as required permissions, side effects, idempotency implications, or post-creation steps is provided.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence with a clear verb and resource. However, the '[Write]' tag is redundant given the annotation, so the description isn't perfectly efficient.

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?

For a create tool with no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, any prerequisites, or the relationship to get/update/list VA topic tools. The schema covers field details, but the broader workflow context is missing.

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 fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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) and the resource (Virtual Agent conversation topic), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from related sibling tools like update_va_topic or list_va_topics_full, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for new topics only, nor does it exclude cases better suited for updating or retrieving existing topics.

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