create_forum_topic

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

The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false indicates a write operation). It adds the version requirement and the chat type scope, but does not describe side effects, permissions, or return behavior. Given annotations already cover the mutation safety profile, the description adds only marginal behavioral context.

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 a single well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and includes a version qualifier. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 create operation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the required parameters 'name' and 'chat_id' in the context of this tool, nor does it mention what the tool returns. The low parameter coverage and lack of return value description leave gaps that the description does not fill.

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 25% (only chat_id has a description). The description does not mention any of the parameters, and it does not compensate for the missing documentation of 'name', 'icon_color', or 'icon_custom_emoji_id'. Minimal inference can be made from the phrase 'topic' but it is not explicit enough to guide parameter usage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource 'a topic' and context 'in a forum supergroup or private chat', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like edit_forum_topic and delete_forum_topic. The version constraint adds clarity. This is a clear purpose statement.

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 when to use by specifying the context (forum supergroup or private chat) and the version requirement (v9.4+), but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when to choose this over other topic-related tools, so it relies on the reader's inference.

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