discord_community

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description never warns that some listed actions (template_delete, template_sync, template_edit, welcome_edit, onboarding_edit, widget_edit) mutate or destroy server configuration while others (welcome_get, onboarding_get, widget_get, widget_json, templates) are reads. Bundling destructive and read-only actions into one flat list with no risk separation leaves the agent unable to tell which invocations are irreversible.

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: the resource and action set first, then the delegation instruction. The action enumeration is dense but earns its place by exposing the enum values, and there is no filler prose.

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 6-parameter, nested-object, destructive, open-world tool with no output schema, the description supplies almost no behavioral context; it pushes all detail to discord_help. Nothing states what a successful call returns, whether template_sync alters existing guild structure, or what permissions are needed for the edit/delete actions.

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% and the schema already explains body, files, query, params, and reason. The description adds only the pointer to discord_help for per-action request fields, which is useful routing but no syntax or constraint 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?

It names the resource (Discord community) and enumerates the 12 supported actions, so an agent knows this is a multi-action community-config tool. However, the action names are a bare list with no explanation of what welcome vs onboarding vs widget vs template operations actually do, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like discord_guild or discord_snapshot beyond the action vocabulary.

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 a concrete routing instruction: call discord_help with group="community" and the action to get required IDs, request fields, limits and examples. That tells the agent how to prepare a call, but it gives no guidance on when to pick this tool over discord_guild, or which action suits which intent, and no exclusions.

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