discord_send_dm

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-read-only, open-world operation. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the recipient-side constraints for delivery to succeed and the guarantee that the message never pings anyone. Return format is not described, but no output schema exists.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then constraints, then a behavioral guarantee. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key delivery constraints and the no-ping behavior. It omits what the call returns and whether content or embed is required, which are minor gaps against the schema's coverage.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds no parameter-level detail at all. The 'never pings' note indirectly touches content behavior, but it does not clarify the required user_id, the 2000-char content limit, or the embed object beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb (send) and resource (direct message) with an explicit recipient scope (to a user), which inherently distinguishes it from channel-oriented siblings like discord_send_message and from discord_read_dm. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete prerequisites for success: the recipient must share a server with the bot and must allow DMs from server members. It does not, however, name an alternative or state when to prefer another tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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