update_discussion_topic

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as what content may be overwritten or whether the update is partial. The idempotentHint and destructiveHint are already present in annotations, but the description itself does not disclose side effects. It merely restates that the operation updates an existing resource.

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 with no redundant content. It communicates the core purpose efficiently, although it is terse.

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 tool has 10 optional parameters and a destructiveHint, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the PATCH-like behavior that only provided fields are updated, nor the side effects of unpublishing/locking or deleting content. The lack of an output schema means the description could have clarified expected behavior, but it does not.

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 100%, with each of the 10 parameters documented by name and meaning. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, so it relies on the schema. Per the baseline for full schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the operation as updating an existing discussion topic or announcement, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_discussion_topic and delete_announcement. However, it does not enumerate the updatable fields, so it stops short of a fully detailed purpose.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus create_discussion_topic or delete_announcement, nor does it mention prerequisites. The only implied context is that the resource must already exist, which is not enough.

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