Edit a forum topic

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

The description does not add behavioral context beyond the actions themselves. It does not explain whether actions can be combined, what happens if both closed and hidden are set, or any side effects. With annotations openWorldHint and idempotentHint, the safety profile is partially covered, but the description adds no extra value beyond the annotation.

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 that uses action-packed verbs with no wasted words. It is highly concise and structured effectively, listing the four main capabilities in a compact enumeration.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and annotations that are present but minimal. The description is too brief to be contextually complete: it omits required parameter semantics (peer, topicId) and does not describe return format, permission requirements, or the effect of omitting optional fields. For a tool with this complexity, the description is insufficient.

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 maps 'rename' to title, 're-icon' to iconEmojiId, 'close' to closed, and 'hide' to hidden, providing meaning for 4 of 7 parameters. However, it does not explain peer, topicId, or accountId, which are essential for identifying the target topic. The partial coverage adds value but leaves gaps.

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 'Rename / re-icon / close / hide a topic' clearly states the specific actions and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like edit_title (chat/channel title) and create_topic (creating a topic). The verb list is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is only for existing forum topics or how it differs from edit_message or edit_title. The usage is only implied by the name and description, lacking clear context or exclusions.

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