ed_post_thread

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

注解只表明非只读、非破坏性，描述额外披露了 markdown 自动转 XML、发出即上线无草稿、is_private 时仅教职工和本人可见，这些是注解无法覆盖的关键行为。

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?

两句话涵盖核心动作、格式转换、发布特性、隐私设置，信息密度高，无冗余。

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?

对创建帖子的核心行为交代清楚，包括格式转换、发布状态、隐私范围。但未说明成功后的返回内容或可能的错误，在无输出 schema 的情况下略显不足。

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?

描述为 content（自动转 XML）和 is_private（可见范围）提供了额外说明，但 subcategory、thread_type、is_anonymous 等参数无额外解释。schema 覆盖率为 50%，描述部分补偿了缺失。

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?

描述明确说'在 Ed 课程论坛发新帖'，具体动词+资源+平台，清楚区别于 ed_post_comment、ed_edit_thread 等兄弟工具。

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?

描述暗示这是创建新帖的工具，并补充了发布即生效、无草稿等特性。虽然没有显式说明何时不用（如编辑已有帖子），但结合兄弟工具名称，上下文足够清晰。

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