discord_commands

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say that guild_delete/global_delete/global_replace_all permanently remove commands, does not mention permission or rate-limit constraints on command registration, and provides no auth context. It defers all behavior to discord_help.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action enumeration, with no filler. The action list is long but load-bearing since it is the only statement of scope. The only mild inefficiency is that the enumeration is presented without any grouping or explanation.

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 ten-action, destructive, six-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is essentially a router to discord_help, which is a legitimate design but leaves the agent without any in-definition sense of what each action does or returns. It is complete as a dispatch stub but thin given the tool's complexity and destructive scope.

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 body, files, query, params and reason are already documented in the schema, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only that discord_help supplies the per-action request fields and required IDs, which is a pointer rather than added semantic meaning. It does not explain how params interact with each action.

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 names the resource ("Discord commands") and enumerates all ten actions, which tells an agent the tool covers application-command registration at guild and global scope. However, it never says these are application/slash commands, so action names like guild_create and guild_list read ambiguously next to the sibling discord_guild, which plausibly handles servers. The verbs are only in the action names, not explained in prose.

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 routes the agent to discord_help with group="commands" for IDs, fields, limits and examples, which is real delegation guidance. But it gives no when-to-use versus siblings (discord_guild, discord_permissions) and no when-not or prerequisite conditions. Usage is implied by the action list rather than stated.

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