Update emoji

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations: it implies mutation (not read-only) but does not disclose details like required permissions, reversibility, or error handling. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description fails to expand on these traits.

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 a single sentence that directly and front-loads the core action, with no superfluous words. It is maximally concise.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is too brief. It lacks context on use cases, parameter relationships, and potential errors, leaving important gaps for an AI agent.

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?

The tool description does not explain the parameters, and while the schema describes 'emoji' and 'guild', the 'name' parameter lacks a description. With 67% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, e.g., not clarifying that 'name' is the new name for the emoji.

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 explicitly states the action ('Rename') and the resource ('a custom emoji'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_emoji or delete_emoji.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as prerequisites like needing the current emoji name/ID or permissions. It simply states the action.

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