discord_emojis

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent behavior. The description only repeats the action names and delegates details to discord_help; it adds no specific information about what delete destroys, required permissions, side effects, 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?

The description is short and front-loaded: resource, action list, then help pointer. The opening 'Discord emojis' fragment is mildly redundant with the tool name but does not materially hurt clarity.

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-parameter, multi-action, destructive tool with nested objects, the description is thin and relies heavily on discord_help for action-specific details. Annotations and schema cover safety and many parameter details, but action-specific behavior and sibling selection guidance remain missing.

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 high at 83%, so the schema already documents body, files, query, params, and reason. The description confirms that action-specific IDs and request fields are obtained via discord_help but does not add parameter format or role semantics 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 emojis') and enumerates the five operations (list/get/create/edit/delete), so an agent can identify it as the emoji-management tool. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling resources such as stickers or soundboard, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 action list implies use for emoji operations and points to discord_help with group="emojis" and action for required IDs, request fields, limits, and examples. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternative selection criteria against sibling tools, leaving action-specific usage to another tool.

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