post_discussion_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('post') but does not describe side effects (e.g., creates a record, permission requirements), return values, or how the output schema relates. Nothing beyond the basic mutation is disclosed.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It avoids unnecessary words, but it is almost too brief, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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 only 3 simple parameters and an output schema, the description still lacks essential context such as usage distinction (explicit alternative), behavioral expectations, and parameter semantics. It does not fully cover what an agent needs to confidently invoke the tool.

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. However, it only mentions 'discussion topic' and does not explain what message, topic_id, or course_identifier should contain. Parameter names are self-explanatory but no additional semantics or format guidance is provided.

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 a specific verb 'post' with a clear resource 'new top-level entry in a discussion topic'. The phrase 'top-level entry' distinguishes it from sibling reply_to_discussion_entry, making its 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 implicitly signals when to use this tool by specifying 'top-level entry', implying that replies would use a different tool. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or state conditions like 'use this for new discussion threads, not replies' or mention any prerequisites such as user enrollment.

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