Create Topic

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature. The description adds useful behavioral details (plain text vs Markdown, title requirement for 'article') but does not address side effects or error conditions, and the openWorldHint=true annotation suggests unstated behaviors, which the description does not clarify.

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 extremely concise, containing only two sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the additional detail is efficiently placed.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (unseen), the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks information about prerequisites, error conditions, or the effect of the openWorldHint. The discrepancy with the input schema also detracts from completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining Markdown acceptance and title requirement for 'article', but it contradicts the schema by implying title is optional for 'post' when schema marks it required. This contradiction can mislead agents, reducing effectiveness.

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 creates a new discussion topic and distinguishes between two topic types ('post' vs 'article'), which helps differentiate from sibling tools like topic_create_reply. However, the description's implication that title is optional for 'post' conflicts with the input schema's required fields, slightly reducing clarity.

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 gives guidance on when to use each topic_type but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like topic_create_reply. The usage context is implied but not fully articulated, leaving some ambiguity.

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