Create a forum topic

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

With only the cryptic 'openWorldHint' annotation, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the prerequisite of a forum-enabled supergroup but fails to state permissions required, what happens if the peer is not forum-enabled, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a potentially mutating action.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It efficiently communicates the core action and the key constraint without redundant phrasing.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and a vague annotation, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the peer parameter format, the return value, how optional icon parameters are used, or any prerequisite beyond 'forum-enabled'. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 40%, leaving peer, title, and accountId undocumented. The description adds no elaboration on any parameter, so it does not compensate for the low coverage. Users are left guessing the format or semantics of the crucial required 'peer' parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create'), a resource ('topic'), and a key qualifier ('forum-enabled supergroup'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like edit_topic and list_topics.

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 that this tool should be used only when targeting a forum-enabled supergroup, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as edit_topic or list_topics, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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