post_topic

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already state: readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false already tell the agent this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description does not disclose what happens on duplicate topic creation, whether the operation is synchronous, whether special permissions are needed, or what the response is. It is consistent with the annotations but contributes nothing beyond them.

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?

Five words, one sentence, zero filler. The verb 'Create' is front-loaded and every word earns its place. Nothing could be trimmed without losing the core meaning.

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 creation tool with five parameters (including a nested configs object), no output schema, and no stated prerequisites or failure behavior, the description is too thin. The agent cannot learn what happens if the topic already exists, whether auth/environment setup is required first, or what a successful call returns. The complete schema covers parameters, but tool-level context is largely missing.

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%—name, cluster, configs, partition, and replication each have a description—so the baseline is 3 per the rubric. The description 'Create a new topic' adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema fully carries that burden, so no penalty beyond baseline is warranted.

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?

'Create a new topic' states a specific verb and resource with no ambiguity—an agent can tell this is the topic-creation operation and distinguish it from get_topic, delete_topic, post_topic_configs, and post_topic_produce. However, it does no explicit differentiation work (no sibling named, no 'unlike X' clause), so it stops one notch short of the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., that an environment or bearer token may be required, as suggested by sibling tools set_environment and set_bearer_token), and no exclusions. The agent gets zero direction beyond the bare action.

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