update_embed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does disclose important behavioral traits: the Discord mention support differences between title/authorName/footerText (no mentions) versus description (supports mentions). However, it doesn't address critical mutation behaviors like whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds value but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized with two focused paragraphs. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and subsequent sentences add specific capabilities and important constraints. The Discord mentions warning is front-loaded with an emoji for emphasis. While efficient, the second paragraph could be slightly more integrated with the first.

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 complex mutation tool with 22 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and some behavioral constraints (mention support), but lacks critical context about mutation consequences, permissions, error handling, and response format. Given the complexity and absence of structured safety information, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance.

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 22 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions the four image positions (authorIcon, thumbnail, image, footerIcon) and theme application, but these are already covered in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Modifie un embed existant') and comprehensively lists the resources that can be modified (title, description, color, image positions, fields, buttons, and themes). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'creer_embed' (create) and 'edit_message' (general message editing) by focusing specifically on embed modification.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'creer_embed' (for creating new embeds) or 'edit_message' (for non-embed message edits). It mentions applying predefined themes but doesn't explain when this is appropriate or what prerequisites exist for using the tool.

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