Create Topic

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and the description confirms creation behavior. It adds that 'post' is default and 'article' requires title, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions are present.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no wasted words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 no output schema, the description is mostly complete for a creation tool with good annotations. However, it could mention what the response contains (e.g., created topic details) to fully inform the agent.

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 description adds context beyond it: default topic_type, plain text vs Markdown body, and that title is required for 'article'. This adds meaningful value.

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 'Create a new discussion topic' and differentiates between 'post' and 'article' types, providing specific verb-resource pairing sufficient to distinguish from siblings like topic_create_reply and topic_detail.

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 explains when to use each topic_type ('post' for plain text, 'article' for Markdown with title requirement), but does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or compare with alternatives like replying or viewing. This is acceptable for a creation tool but could be enhanced.

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