discord_send_message

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one important behavioral constraint: mentions are restricted unless explicitly allowed. However, it does not describe what happens when a mention is blocked, what authorization is required, or how embeds and replies are treated.

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 with no filler. The primary action comes first, and the critical mention restriction is delivered immediately afterward. Every sentence 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 such a parameter-rich tool with no annotations, the description is not complete enough. The agent can infer basic sending behavior but cannot fully understand embedding, replying, mention allowlists, or the operational constraints around those features. The output schema helps with return values, but not with usage behavior.

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?

With 12 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameter behavior. It only loosely addresses the mention-related parameters and provides no semantics for content, embed_* fields, reply_to_message_id, or guild_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?

Identifies a specific action—send—and a specific resource—message—so an agent clearly knows what the tool does. It is not a tautology because the mention restriction adds scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from related sibling tools such as discord_edit_message or discord_delete_message.

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 implies the usage: use this tool when you want to send a Discord message. It does not explicitly state when-not to use it or offer alternatives, and it leaves prerequisites like channel access and permissions implied rather than stated.

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