create_forum

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: 'Idempotent by slug' (upsert behavior), default hidden and general type, and the requirement of a plugin companion. While it does not detail update semantics (e.g., merge vs replace) or return values, it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 three concise sentences, each adding value: purpose, idempotency, defaults, and a dependency. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Despite the description's clarity, the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so it needs more completeness. It covers core behavior but omits important context such as how updates affect existing data, what the plugin companion is for, and how to choose between this tool and create_forum_announcement. These gaps make it merely adequate.

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 only 43%, meaning the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'slug' via idempotency and clarifies defaults ('hidden forum of type general') which are already present in the schema. It does not explain the roles of course_id, name, intro, or visible beyond what is implicit, leaving significant parameter ambiguity.

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 or update a forum' with the resource being a forum in a course section, and it mentions idempotency by slug. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'create_forum_announcement', despite mentioning announcements as a forum type, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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: it is for creating or updating forums in a course section, and idempotency by slug implies use when you have a stable slug. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, especially given the existence of create_forum_announcement.

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