create_topic

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that topics are long-lived, rarely changed, and capped at ~3-5, which shapes agent behavior. However, it says nothing about permissions, duplicate-name handling, or what happens on repeated creation — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences with the pipeline stage front-loaded and every clause carrying information (step, lifetime, frequency cap, usage condition). No filler.

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 a fully documented schema and no output schema needed, the description supplies the pipeline role and usage discipline an agent needs to place this tool correctly. Missing only edge-case behavior (duplicates, permissions) for a mutation tool.

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 four parameters (name, intent, keywords, description). The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('Create a new topic') and situates it as pipeline step 1 (Strategy). The added scope notes (long-lived, 3~5 total, rarely changed) tell the agent this is not a routine creation tool, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_idea or create_content.

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?

'Only add when a genuinely new content theme emerges' gives a clear gating condition for use, reinforced by the scarcity note (3~5 total). No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use routing to sibling tools, but the condition is stated rather than implied.

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