create_topic

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

Annotations are sparse (no read, write, or side-effect details beyond hints). The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating 'Publishes or updates participant state using participant_token,' which goes beyond the annotations. It also warns about token leakage, giving agents an important operational constraint. This is valuable disclosed behavior that annotations do not cover.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, with the core action first, then a practical content guideline, then a critical security warning. Every sentence earns its place and the most operationally important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the main action, a key usage prerequisite, and token safety, but with no output schema it does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., topic ID or debate ID). It also does not explain how this tool fits into the broader workflow relative to sibling tools. These are meaningful gaps for a tool that creates resources with side effects.

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 40%, so the description must compensate. It adds guidance for 'title' (keep concise) and 'description' (place detailed context), and reinforces 'participant_token' handling. However, the 'slug' parameter remains completely undocumented in both schema and description, and question's default behavior is only in the schema. The description partially compensates but leaves a gap.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Create an open, evolvable topic and its initial debate.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying that it creates the initial debate rather than contributing to an existing one. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, so it misses the highest level of clarity.

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 implies a prerequisite by referencing 'participant_token returned by join' and gives a concrete usage rule: 'Never put the token in public text.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like propose, argue, or amend, nor does it mention exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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