update_discussion_topic

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the generic word 'update'. It does not disclose that updating can overwrite existing content, affect publish state, or that nulling fields may clear values. No contradiction with annotations, but also no added transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's operation without any filler or redundancy. It earns its place.

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 mutation tool with 10 parameters, the description is very thin. It omits important context like the fact that topic_id doubles as an announcement ID and that null field values clear content. However, the rich input schema, annotations, and presence of an output schema partially compensate for this.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 10 parameters, including defaults and allowed nulls, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, such as clarifying that topic_id can refer to an announcement ID.

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 'update' and clearly identifies the resource as 'existing discussion topic or announcement'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_discussion_topic, get_discussion_topic_details, and delete_announcement, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where create_discussion_topic or update_assignment would be more appropriate, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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