tg_topic_create

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

Annotations already mark this as not read-only and not destructive, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the topics-enabled precondition and the target resource, but does not mention potential errors, permissions, or duplicate-topic behavior. With annotation coverage of the basic mutation profile, 3 is appropriate.

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 with no filler. Every word adds semantic value, and the critical constraint ('topics enabled') is placed right in the main clause.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits parameter semantics for icon_emoji_id, lacks any indication of return value or failure modes, and only weakly implies what chat and title map to. Annotations cover some safety aspects but not invocation completeness.

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 for the three parameters. It gives a domain clue tying the action to a supergroup (likely 'chat') and a topic (likely 'title'), but it never names or explains the parameters, and 'icon_emoji_id' is entirely unmentioned.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('forum topic') and adds the precise setting ('supergroup that has topics enabled'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tg_topic_edit and tg_topics without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 phrase 'in a supergroup that has topics enabled' establishes a clear precondition for when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it for topic creation.

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