discord_interactions

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only declare destructive/openWorld) by disclosing that credentials are internally retained, that initial replies are ephemeral, that tokens expire after 14 minutes, and that modals require a custom immediate handler. These are exactly the operational constraints an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Six short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the primary action front-loaded. Slightly list-like and could group the constraints (expiry, modals) more tightly, but there is no filler.

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?

Covers the hard parts (token handling, expiry, ephemeral replies, body shape) for a destructive, nested-body mutation tool with no output schema. Still leaves gaps on what delete_reply does when invoked and what a deferral/followup flow looks like, which an agent would need before choosing an action.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it partially does by explaining that `body` follows the Discord.js format and supports content, embeds and components. However, it never explains the `action` enum values (reply vs followup vs delete_reply) or the interaction_id format, leaving the most decision-relevant parameter undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: replying to an interaction_ready event from the Gateway, which is clearly distinct from message-sending siblings like discord_messages or discord_commands. It never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition (an interaction_ready event from the Gateway) and adds a negative constraint (modals are not supported by deferred replies). It stops short of routing the agent to an alternative tool when the interaction is not available or has expired.

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