create_client_discussion

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

No annotations provided. Description indicates this is a write operation (creates a discussion) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, reversibility, or side effects on the resource.

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 sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with key information. Every word adds value.

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?

No output schema, so return value is unknown. Description covers basic purpose and visibility but omits error conditions, success indicators, and any behavioral details like rate limits or idempotency.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. Description adds context that body is client-visible, but this is already implied by the tool name and overall description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'post a client-visible message' on specific resources (invoice or cash receipt), with explicit client visibility. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_private_note.

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?

Description implies client-facing communication but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_private_note. No guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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