post_discussion_entry

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or idempotency. It only states 'post' without explaining what happens on success, error conditions, or whether the action is reversible.

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 concise: one sentence plus a minimal parameter list with no extraneous information. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 the simplicity (3 simple parameters), the description is mostly complete. It could mention that the topic must already exist and that this creates a new thread. The output schema exists to define return values, so missing that info is acceptable.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief parameter descriptions: 'Course code or Canvas ID' for course_identifier, 'Discussion topic ID' for topic_id, and 'Entry message content' for message. This adds some clarity over schema titles but lacks constraints or examples.

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 'Post a new top-level entry to a discussion topic,' which specifies the action (post), target (discussion topic), and scope (top-level entry). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'reply_to_discussion_entry' which is for replies.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., topic must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'create_discussion_topic'.

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