discord_send_file

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, open-world). The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the payload must be base64, the file size is capped at 3 MB, and the message is optional. It stops short of noting auth needs, rate limits, or failure modes, so it is good but not rich.

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?

A single, tightly packed sentence with the key constraint (base64, 3 MB) and scope front-loaded. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 file-upload tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description gives the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly. It omits how uploads are reported back (no output schema) and any error/auth context, but that is a minor gap.

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 channel_id, filename, mime_type, content, and content_base64. The description restates the base64 encoding and the 3 MB ceiling already implied by the schema's maxLength, adding only marginal value, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (upload) and resource (file, base64, up to 3 MB) plus scope (channel or thread). This clearly separates it from discord_send_message, but it never names the sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'to a channel or thread' implies where the tool applies, and 'with an optional message' hints at the message-attachment use case. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus discord_send_message or discord_send_webhook_message, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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