creer_embed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes multiple behavioral traits: the three-step process (obligatory/recommended/optional), automatic Phase 1 enhancements (cache, fallback, validation), and crucial Discord mention behavior (what supports/doesn't support mentions). It doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but provides substantial operational context beyond basic functionality.

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 excessively long (over 500 words) with multiple sections, emojis, and formatting that doesn't efficiently convey essential information. While structured with steps and sections, it includes tangential details like image pixel dimensions and Phase 1 enhancement marketing language. A more concise, front-loaded description would better serve an AI agent needing to quickly understand the tool's core purpose and usage.

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's high complexity (38 parameters, nested objects) and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about behavior and usage. However, it lacks information about return values, error conditions, or what happens after embed creation. The description covers many aspects but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of output schema and annotations for such a complex 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 38 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some semantic context by grouping parameters into three steps (channelId/title/description as obligatory, theme as recommended, image/thumbnail/buttons/fields as optional) and explaining image positions. However, it doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's already in the detailed schema descriptions, meeting the baseline for high schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: creating Discord embeds with a three-step process. It specifies the verb 'Créer' and resource 'embed Discord', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'envoyer_message' (send message) or 'update_embed' (update existing embed). The title is null, so the description fully carries the 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (creating Discord embeds) and mentions using 'help=true' for interactive guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., 'envoyer_message' for simple messages, 'create_poll' for polls). The three-step structure implies a recommended usage flow but lacks explicit exclusions.

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