discord_send_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing behavioral: no note that the post is public/visible to channel members, irreversible via this tool, or subject to permissions or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the required payload combination. No filler.

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 low-complexity send tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits permission requirements, failure behavior, and routing against the many other sending tools, leaving real gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a real constraint not encoded in the schema: only channel_id is required, yet the text establishes that content and/or an embed must be supplied. That is genuine additive value.

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 and resource ('Send a message to a channel or thread'), which is enough to distinguish it from the DM and webhook siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so differentiation relies on the channel/thread scoping.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. Given siblings discord_send_dm, discord_send_webhook_message, and discord_send_file, the agent gets no help deciding which send path applies.

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