tg_topic_edit

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

No annotations exist, so description must carry behavioral disclosure. It lists the operations but doesn't explain that null values leave fields unchanged, that it's a mutating operation, or any side effects/reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence lists all operations without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 6-parameter mutation tool, the description lacks crucial guides: null semantics, need for chat/topic_id, and potential conflicts when combining fields. Output schema covers return values, but effective invocation depends on understanding optionality.

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?

The description maps each verb to a parameter (rename→title, close→closed, hide→hidden, pin→pinned), adding semantics beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain the role of chat and topic_id, nor the nullable 'leave unchanged' behavior, so coverage remains incomplete.

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?

Description uses specific verbs ('Rename', 'close/reopen', 'hide', 'pin') with resource 'forum topic', clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like tg_topic_create (creation) and tg_pin (message pinning).

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 explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The intended use is implied by the action list, but there's no clarification about when to choose this over tg_edit or tg_pin for topic-related operations.

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