discord_guild

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the action list (including destructive-sounding delete_integration and leave) and defers limits to discord_help, but it does not explain which actions are destructive, what gets destroyed, permission requirements, or rate-limit behavior. With annotations carrying the core safety disclosure, this is adequate but thin.

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?

It is two sentences with no filler, and the action list is front-loaded. The opening 'Discord guild.' is so terse that it barely functions as a purpose statement, but the description remains efficient and well-structured.

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 complex, multi-action, destructive-capable guild tool with no output schema, the description delegates almost all operational detail to discord_help. That pointer is important and appropriate, but the description itself does not summarize what each action returns, what resources are affected, or failure modes. Combined with existing annotations and rich schema, it is minimally complete rather than fully 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 body, files, query, params, and reason well enough. The description adds only the action list and a pointer to discord_help, not meaning beyond the schema for parameters such as guild_id defaults, route IDs, or request fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource ('Discord guild') and enumerates the specific actions available (get, preview, edit, audit_log, etc.), so an agent can tell this is the guild-level operations tool rather than a sibling like discord_roles or discord_channels. It is clear but terse, since 'Discord guild' alone does not explain what most actions do.

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?

It directs the agent to call discord_help with group="guild" and the action for required IDs, request fields, limits, and examples, which is useful procedural guidance. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus sibling tools or when to avoid it, leaving usage context implied by the action list.

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