discord_soundboard

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 adds nothing about which actions are destructive (delete vs play), required bot permissions, voice-connection prerequisites for play, or rate limits — it defers all of that to discord_help, which softens but does not fill the gap for a destructive multi-action tool.

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 short sentences with the resource stated first and the routing instruction second; nothing is wasted. It is slightly under-informative rather than verbose, but structurally front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 seven-action, destructive, open-world tool with six parameters, nested objects and no output schema, the description is thin and relies entirely on a secondary discord_help call for action semantics. The delegation is a deliberate pattern in this toolset, but an agent cannot invoke create/edit/play correctly without that extra round trip.

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. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, only pointing to discord_help for request fields and IDs, which is baseline-appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the resource ('Discord soundboard') and enumerates the seven actions, but the action list merely restates the schema enum and never says what each action operates on (create a sound, play a sound in a voice channel). An agent can tell it concerns soundboard management, but the per-action purpose is left implicit.

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 gives a concrete routing instruction: call discord_help with group="soundboard" and the action to obtain required IDs and request fields. That is a useful prerequisite, but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like discord_voice or discord_messages, nor any when-not condition.

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