discord_account

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds no concrete behavioral context: it does not say which actions mutate or destroy data, what auth is needed, or what limits apply beyond pointing to discord_help. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, with the action list front-loaded and the help pointer kept compact. 'Discord account' slightly restates the tool name, but overall the wording is efficient; under-specification is a completeness issue rather than verbosity.

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 six-action, potentially destructive account tool with no output schema, the description provides the action enum and an explicit discord_help routing instruction. However, it omits action semantics and destructive specifics, making it minimally usable but not self-contained.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description does not explain action-specific parameters or IDs; it only defers to discord_help, which is useful routing but not added semantic detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names the resource ('Discord account') and enumerates six actions, but does not state what any action does, so edit versus user versus application is left ambiguous. The action list adds scope beyond the name, but an agent still cannot distinguish behavior from siblings without calling discord_help.

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 only guidance is to call discord_help for action-specific details. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no comparison to sibling tools such as discord_guild or discord_members; usage is only implied by the action names.

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