Criar thread ou post de forum

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: content is mandatory in forums, tags are forum-only, and content becomes the first message of a standalone thread. It omits permission/auth requirements and archive behavior (left to the schema).

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the forum case and then the text-channel branch, with zero filler. Every clause carries a behavioral rule the caller needs.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the critical mode-dependent logic is fully covered, and remaining details (format, autoArchiveMinutes defaults) live in the schema. It does not hint at the returned shape, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds conditional semantics the schema cannot express: content is required only in the forum branch, tags apply only to forums, and messageId presence/absence changes the operation. That is real added meaning over the flat parameter list.

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 (cria) plus resource (thread/post) and splits the behavior by context: forum post vs. text-channel thread. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like send_message, reply_message and join_thread without needing to open a schema.

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 explicit conditional guidance: in a forum it creates a post, in a text channel messageId selects 'thread from message' vs. 'standalone public thread'. It does not name an alternative sibling or state when NOT to use it (e.g., use reply_message for plain replies), so it falls short of a 5.

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