Create Discussion

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

The description directly contradicts the annotations: annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the action is creating a discussion, which is not destructive. Additionally, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic creation action, such as side effects, permissions, or response behavior. The openWorldHint is also not addressed.

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, and front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It delivers the core purpose immediately without any fluff, making it optimally concise.

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 has 8 parameters, including nuanced options like is_announcement and delayed_post_at, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not mention that the tool can create announcements or schedule posts, nor does it explain any return values or side effects. This lack of context could lead to misuse or confusion about capabilities.

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%, and the description adds no additional parameter information. The baseline of 3 applies because all parameters are already documented in the schema, but the description does not enrich understanding of optional parameters like is_announcement, delayed_post_at, or discussion_type.

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 (a new discussion topic), and the scope (in a course). It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools like update_discussion, delete_discussion, list_discussions, and get_discussion.

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 update_discussion or list_discussions. It does not mention prerequisites, such as having appropriate permissions or whether it should be used only for new topics. The absence of any context or exclusions leaves the agent without direction.

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