discord_create_forum_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'creates' (implying a write/mutation operation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, whether the post is public/private, or what happens on failure. The mention of 'optional tags' hints at functionality but lacks details on tag constraints or effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, and the optional feature is added concisely. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling, most parameters are unexplained, and there's no info on return values. For a create operation in a collaborative platform like Discord, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optional tags' which maps to the 'tags' parameter, adding some meaning. However, it doesn't explain the other three parameters (content, forumChannelId, title), their formats, or constraints (e.g., title length limits, content type). The description provides minimal param info, not fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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 ('creates a new post') and resource ('in a Discord forum channel'), with an additional feature ('with optional tags'). It distinguishes from siblings like discord_send (general message) and discord_reply_to_forum (reply vs. new post), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't specify if this is for text-only posts or includes other media, leaving some ambiguity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing forumChannelId from discord_get_forum_channels), exclusions (e.g., not for non-forum channels), or compare to siblings like discord_send for regular channels. The description implies usage for forum posts but lacks explicit context or constraints.

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