add_discussion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds the crucial detail that the write is IRREVERSIBLE and that the default call is a safe preview. It stops short of covering permissions or whether the thread can later be edited/deleted, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Two short sentences plus a wrapped instruction; the irreversible warning is front-loaded and the safety procedure follows immediately. Every line earns its place with 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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description's remaining job is to convey risk and the confirmation workflow — which it does completely. An agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly without accidental posting.

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% and the dry_run parameter is already fully documented there, including the default and the re-call pattern. The description restates the dry_run behavior at a high level but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource: "Start a new discussion thread in a forum." That clearly separates it from read tools like get_forum_discussions, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling add_discussion_post (thread vs. reply), which is the most likely confusion point.

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?

Gives a mandatory two-step protocol: call with dry_run=True first, show the preview, then re-call with dry_run=False only after explicit user confirmation. That is unusually clear invocation guidance, though it says nothing about when to prefer a different sibling (e.g., add_discussion_post for replies).

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