Publicar aviso/tópico ou resposta em fórum da disciplina

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the important behavioral fact that one call serves two distinct modes (create vs. reply), but it stays silent on permissions required, whether students are notified, and what happens to an existing discussion thread when replying.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the action and both modes with no filler or repetition. It is efficient but slightly under-specified for a 5, since one short clause about which parameters select each mode would have cost almost nothing.

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 non-idempotent write tool with no output schema and five fully documented parameters, the description covers the two modes adequately. It is still thin on post-action context — whether the call returns a post ID, whether the new topic becomes publicly visible or notifies students — which matters for a posting 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%, with each parameter (forumId, replyToPostId, pinned, subject, message) documented in the schema itself, so the baseline applies. The description reinforces the mode split that makes forumId vs. replyToPostId meaningful, but adds no detail about the mutual exclusivity of those two parameters or the HTML formatting accepted by message.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Publica um novo aviso/tópico em um fórum da disciplina") and also covers the second mode ("responde a uma postagem existente"), so an agent can tell this writes to a forum rather than reading it like get_forum_discussions. It is clear, though it never explicitly names a sibling tool to contrast with.

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 two operating modes (new topic vs. reply) imply when each path applies and the example "fórum de Avisos" hints at announcement posting, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no statement about prerequisites such as needing forumId for new topics or replyToPostId for replies, and no routing to alternative tools.

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