Notify a Discord role

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that DMs are sent to everyone in the role, that answers are broadcast to the whole role, that image uploads are automatic, and that paymentAmount converts the message into an invoice and marks tickets paid. This is substantial behavioral detail, though it does not mention rate limits, irreversibility, or permissions.

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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the core action before explaining options. It could be slightly better structured with bullets or separate sentences for the payment mode, but every sentence contributes useful information and no words are wasted.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the key behavioral contexts: role-wide DMs, button labels, payment flow, and ticket relay behavior. It leaves a few edge cases undocumented (e.g., what happens if no images are provided, whether DMs are batched), but it covers the main decision points an agent needs.

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?

The input schema already has 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining how paymentAmount changes the buttons to Paid/Cancel and marks the ticket paid, and how ticket relays the note and answers. This goes beyond the schema's literal property descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('DM everyone holding a Discord role') and specifies the resource ('about a game'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_notification_history or send_channel_message. It also states additional capabilities (attachments, answer buttons, payment invoices), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 gives strong context on when to use the tool (notifying a role about a game) and even explains the payment-mode behavior for commissioned work. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to alternatives such as send_channel_message, but the context is clear enough that an agent can decide appropriately.

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