update_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. It discloses the limitation on updatable fields and references list_discussions for obtaining assignment_id, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, or return behavior. This is helpful but not comprehensive for a mutation tool without annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes an explicit alternative. Every sentence provides distinct value with no redundancy.

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 simple update tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope and exclusions clearly. It lacks notes on partial update behavior or return values, but given the tool's modest complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 60% with descriptions on course_id, discussion_id, and message. The description adds clarity by explicitly listing the updatable fields (title, message, published), which helps map intent to parameters. However, it does not add format or constraint details for the unannotated parameters (title, published), so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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 tool updates a discussion topic's title, message, or published state, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting that it cannot update dates or points, which differentiates it from update_assignment and update_assignment_dates.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance by stating what cannot be updated and directing the user to alternative tools (update_assignment or update_assignment_dates) for those cases. It also implies the primary use case for updating discussion content fields, giving clear context for appropriate invocation.

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