Create a topic

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful fact beyond that — the confirm=true gate tied to user intent — but it does not say what state is mutated, whether it is reversible, or what permissions are needed.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, and the confirmation requirement is front-loaded after the purpose. It is efficient, though extremely sparse for a 7-parameter tool.

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?

With 86% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient, but this is a complex tool with a nested payload object and mutually exclusive body options (payload vs payload_file vs body flags) that the description never acknowledges. An agent must infer this complexity entirely from the schema.

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 86%, so nearly every parameter (account, confirm, payload, space_ids, admin_only, payload_file) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb and resource ("Create a topic"), but it is essentially the title restated and does nothing to distinguish this tool from siblings like create_space, create_post, or create_event. An agent learns what happens but not why this tool over another creator.

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?

"Requires confirm=true for the user-requested action" implies the tool should be used when the user explicitly asked for this action, which is a mild usage signal. However, it never names an alternative, states prerequisites, or explains when not to call it.

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