Update a topic

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral requirement (confirm=true for user-requested actions) and confirms state mutation, but says nothing about what specifically changes, permissions, or reversibility.

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, front-loaded with the action and its constraint, with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably terse for a tool with 8 parameters and nested objects.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with nested objects and three mutually exclusive body-input options (body flags, payload, payload_file), the description is too thin. It omits the payload-vs-flags-vs-file choice and any statement of effect, leaving an agent under-informed despite the rich 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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly all 8 parameters, including the confirm and payload fields. The description's only param-relevant content echoes the confirm semantics already present in the schema, adding little new meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Update a topic'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from create_topic, delete_topic, and get_topic by name. However, it adds no field-level or scope detail beyond restating the title, and 'Changes community state' is vague rather than differentiating.

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 siblings like update_space or update_community, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The one conditional ('requires confirm=true for the user-requested action') is really a parameter instruction, not alternative-routing guidance.

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