tg_topic_edit

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false, destructive=true, and idempotent=true, and the description aligns with these. However, the description does not elaborate on consequences, such as what hiding a topic does, whether closing prevents replies, or how boolean false values behave. It adds operation names but not side-effect context beyond what annotations imply.

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 sentence that front-loads the principal action and then lists all supported operations with zero filler. Every word earns its place, making the description immediately scannable and efficient.

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 description covers the main actions but omits important operational details: how boolean parameters behave, whether operations can be combined, what happens when optional parameters are omitted, and the nature of destructive effects (given destructiveHint=true). With no output schema, an agent can infer the core intent but may mispredict edge cases, particularly around false booleans.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the interpretive burden. It effectively maps title to rename, closed to close/reopen, hidden to hide, and pinned to pin. However, it provides no semantics for chat or topic_id, and it does not clarify how boolean values map to actions (e.g., closed=false meaning reopen). This is a partial but incomplete compensation for the empty schema.

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 specific verbs and a clear resource: rename, close/reopen, hide, or pin a forum topic. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like tg_topic_create (creating topics) and tg_topics (topic listing/management), giving an agent unambiguous understanding of the tool's function.

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 usage when modifying an existing forum topic's title or state, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tg_topic_create. There are no exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage context to inference.

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