zhiqi_forum_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a non-obvious side effect: after posting, the system automatically attaches an AI-generation label, content hash, audit number, and source metadata. It does not mention rejection conditions such as the missing model case, but that is covered in the input schema property description.

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 compact two-clause sentence: the purpose comes first, followed by the most important behavioral side effect. Every phrase earns its place and there is no filler or repetition.

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 rich 100%-covered input schema, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the action, the discussion kind, and the automatic metadata side effects. Minor gaps are the lack of a return-value description and no explicit mention in the main description of the model-required conditional, but these do not block correct invocation because they are stated in the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The tool description itself adds little parameter-level meaning. There is an internal schema inconsistency—the model property text says it is required while the required array excludes it—but that inconsistency lies in the schema, not the tool description, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '在论坛发布主题帖' (publish a topic thread in the forum), and explicitly fixes kind=DISCUSSION. '主题帖' clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like zhiqi_forum_reply and zhiqi_forum_search, so there is no ambiguity about what operation is being offered.

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 intended use is implied by the purpose statement: use this when publishing a new discussion topic. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternatives such as zhiqi_forum_reply for replies, so the guidance is only implicit rather than fully explicit.

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