Create a public topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose two real behavioral traits — the content becomes publicly visible and a moderation-rules disclosure step is required beforehand — which is more than a plain restatement. However it is silent on permissions/actor authorization, whether the topic is immediately live or moderated first, reversibility, and error behavior.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the precondition second. It is efficient and well front-loaded; the brevity is a symptom of under-specification rather than verbosity.

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 write tool that publishes publicly visible content, with no annotations, no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description does too little. It flags the moderation/visibility gate but omits parameter meaning, authorization expectations, what happens after success, and how moderators may act on the topic.

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% across four parameters (actor_id, title, body, tags) and the description says nothing about any of them — no hint about who actor_id is, how title/body lengths behave, or how tags affect discoverability or moderation. With no structured documentation to fall back on, this leaves the required inputs entirely unexplained.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource (\"创建一个公开话题\" / create a public topic), so the agent can tell what will happen. It does not differentiate from the read-side sibling discover_public_topics or explain how a topic relates to rooms/messages, so it stops short of a 5.

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 second sentence supplies a genuine precondition: before publishing, the public visibility scope and content moderation rules must be shown to the user. That is useful implied-usage guidance, but it never says when to choose this over a sibling (e.g. post_public_message or prepare_experience_launch), nor any exclusion conditions.

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