delete_discussion_topic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the deletion is permanent and irreversible ('This cannot be undone'), which is critical for a destructive operation. It also notes that the endpoint handles announcements, adding context beyond the name. However, it omits any side effects (e.g., deletion of associated entries) or permission requirements, but for a delete tool the irreversibility is the key trait.

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 sentences, zero filler. It front-loads the action and the irreversible nature, then adds the announcement clarification. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple delete tool with an output schema present, this description covers the essential context: what it deletes, that it's permanent, and that it also affects announcements. It doesn't discuss side effects on related records, but given the output schema and straightforward nature, this is acceptable. The only missing piece is explicit parameter guidance, already penalized under parameter semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the parameters. It does not mention course_identifier or topic_id at all. While the param names are self-explanatory from the schema, the description adds no clarity on types, formats, or relationships. This is a notable gap given the low coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('delete') with a clear resource ('discussion topic') and even clarifies that announcements share the same endpoint, distinguishing it from the sibling delete_announcement. The purpose is unambiguous and ties directly to the tool name.

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 mentions that announcements share the same endpoint, which implicitly suggests this tool can handle both. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus delete_announcement (a sibling) or any other alternative. There is no when-not-to-use or mention of prerequisites. The inference that this is the 'unified' tool is left to the agent.

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