discord_messages

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond pointing to discord_help; it does not state what delete/bulk_delete destroy, permission requirements, or rate-limit behavior.

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-loads the action list, though the opening fragment 'Discord messages.' is redundant with the tool name. The help pointer is useful and nothing is excessively verbose.

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 multi-action, destructive, open-world tool with nested parameters, the description is adequate only because it delegates details to discord_help. It does not fully explain action-specific behavior or sibling differentiation, leaving gaps for an agent that must invoke the correct action safely.

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 high (83%), so the schema already documents most parameter meanings. The description adds only a general pointer that required IDs and request fields vary by action and are documented in discord_help, without explaining specific parameter semantics.

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 messages) and enumerates the supported actions, making the tool's scope clear enough. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as discord_channels or discord_reactions, but the action list and resource name provide substantial 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?

Usage is implied through the action list and the instruction to call discord_help for action-specific IDs, request fields, limits and examples. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or comparison against alternative sibling tools.

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