create_discussion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is a mutating create operation, supports optional initial post content, and shares an hourly rate window with post_response. It does not cover permissions or the exact response shape, but the core behavioral traits are reasonably transparent.

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 three sentences long and every sentence earns its place: the core action, the recommended precondition, and the rate-limit context. It is front-loaded with the most important information and has 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?

For a five-parameter create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is created, the optional content, a useful prerequisite, and a rate-limit relationship. It does not mention the return value or confirmation, but that is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema and the schema-documented auth token.

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%, so the schema already explains all five parameters, including title guidance, token format, and the source for interest_id. The description only echoes the 'opening post' concept without adding meaning beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Start a new discussion in an interest area, optionally with an opening post.' It clearly distinguishes this create action from the read, browse, and delete siblings in the tool list. The mention of 'interest area' also aligns with the required interest_id parameter.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to 'Read what already exists first (list_discussions)' and explains why: 'the best threads build on the room.' It also names post_response as a rate-window comparison point, giving the agent a concrete way to plan usage. This is more explicit than most tool descriptions.

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