discord_webhooks

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds a pointer to where limits and required IDs live, but it does not distinguish the read-only actions from the irreversible deletes bundled under one destructive annotation, nor mention permissions or rate limits beyond the word '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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the action enum, then the help pointer. The action list is long but carries real information and 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?

For a ten-action multiplexed tool with nested body/query/params objects and no output schema, deferring per-action semantics to discord_help is a defensible pattern and the agent has a clear path to the missing detail. Still, the description itself leaves a caller unable to choose between, say, create and execute, or to know which actions return data.

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 body, files, query and params are already documented structurally, including the $file asset convention. The description adds only a generic redirect to discord_help for request fields, which does not extend meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 webhooks) and enumerates the ten actions the dispatcher supports, which is enough for an agent to know this is the webhook management surface. It does not explain what any individual action does, and the mix of read actions (guild_list, channel_list, get) and write actions (create, edit, delete, execute) makes the single-sentence scope statement thin.

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 description gives a clear next step — call discord_help with group="webhooks" and the action name for IDs, fields, limits and examples — which is useful routing guidance. It offers no when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance against siblings such as discord_channels or discord_messages, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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