add_discussion_post

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the crucial detail that the action is IRREVERSIBLE once dry_run=False and mandates a human-confirmation gate before the mutating call. That is real behavioral context an agent cannot derive from the annotations alone.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the danger, then the required procedure in three short sentences with zero padding. Every line carries actionable information.

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 destructive mutation with an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers purpose, risk, and the required confirmation workflow. It stops short of stating permission requirements or what the dry-run preview contains, which would complete the picture.

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 100% and the schema already documents dry_run, message, subject, and discussion_id, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the safety rationale for dry_run's default and the two-call pattern that makes the flag meaningful.

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 and resource ('Reply to a forum discussion thread'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling add_discussion that starts a new thread. It never names add_discussion or get_discussion_posts explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 an explicit, ordered protocol: call with dry_run=True (the default), show the preview to the user, then call again with dry_run=False only after explicit confirmation. There is no ambiguity about when to invoke it or in what sequence.

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