moodle_post_forum_discussion

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

Annotations only signal a non-read-only operation. The description adds critical non-obvious behaviors: the post is immediately visible to the entire class, there is no draft or recall, and permission-restricted forums cause an error. This significantly exceeds annotation coverage.

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 two concise sentences. The first defines the action, the second delivers crucial warnings. No redundant information or 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 simple 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, this description covers purpose, parameter sourcing, visibility, irreversibility, and an error condition. It leaves no meaningful gaps for an agent to misuse the 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 input schema already describes all 3 parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds valuable meaning by specifying that cmid must come from moodle_get_course_contents and be a forum activity's course module id, which enriches the schema for the agent.

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 the action: '发一个新讨论帖' (post a new discussion topic) in a Moodle forum. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like moodle_reply_forum_post and moodle_delete_forum_post by focusing on creating a new discussion thread.

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?

It gives practical guidance on sourcing cmid from moodle_get_course_contents for forum activities and warns that read-only forums will error. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'when not to use', but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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