create_discussion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention important side effects such as whether a graded discussion also creates an assignment, default publication state (unpublished is implied by the 'published' parameter default), or any permission requirements. The description only restates the basic action without behavioral nuance.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no wasted verbiage, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with well-covered parameters.

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?

With 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal to be contextually complete. It omits key details such as what happens when points_possible is set (graded discussion assignment creation), default states, and what the response would contain. The schema compensates for parameter details but not for behavioral or return-value context.

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 high (90%), so the schema already documents parameters thoroughly. The description does add a small semantic cue ('graded or ungraded') that maps to points_possible, but this is also covered by the parameter description. No significant additional meaning is provided beyond the 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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new graded or ungraded discussion topic'), distinguishing it from related tools like update_discussion or list_discussions. The verb+resource structure is specific and unambiguous.

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 this tool is used when creating a new discussion topic, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., create_assignment for graded work). No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided, so usage context is only inferred from the tool name and sibling tools.

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