canvas_create_discussion

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

Annotations already declare the tool as non-read-only and destructive, but the description adds that it is 'disabled by default' and 'requires explicit confirmation,' which are important behavioral constraints beyond the schema. This helps the agent understand prerequisites and that the tool will not execute without explicit user confirmation.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and immediately adding a critical constraint. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 does not explain return values or error behavior. It also leaves the 'confirmation' parameter value unspecified and does not clarify what 'approved course' means operationally. However, it does disclose the most critical gating (approval and confirmation), making it minimally adequate for a simple creation tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for all parameters, and the description only adds meaning to the 'confirmation' parameter by indicating it must be explicitly provided. It does not explain expected values for confirmation or clarify the semantics of title, message, course_id, published, or discussion_type, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 exactly one Canvas discussion in an approved course,' identifying the verb (create), resource (discussion), and scope (approved course). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create modules, assignments, or quizzes.

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 provides clear context by noting the tool requires an 'approved course' and 'explicit confirmation,' setting prerequisites and conditions for use. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude other creation tools, so it lacks explicit usage comparisons.

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