create_forum_announcement

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

The description discloses only the default forum behavior when forum_id is omitted, but this is already captured in the schema's forum_id description. It omits the schema's additional fallback to the first forum, and it does not mention permissions, side effects, return values, or any other behavioral traits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences to convey the core action and a key default. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no irrelevant information.

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?

Given that this is a create operation with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the required fields (subject, message, course_id), any permission prerequisites, or what the tool returns upon success. It only partially covers the forum_id behavior, leaving significant context gaps for an AI agent.

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 description adds little meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the purpose of subject, message, pin, or format, and the only parameter it touches (forum_id) restates (and slightly understates) the schema's own description. With schema coverage at only 17%, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 ('Post a new discussion') and the resource ('course forum'), making it immediately distinct from sibling tools like create_forum (which creates a new forum) and send_moodle_message (which sends a message). The specific verb and object leave no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 a practical hint about the default forum when forum_id is omitted, which implies a common use case (posting to Announcements). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like create_forum, send_moodle_message, or other communication tools, nor are there exclusion criteria.

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