Update onboarding

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnly=false) and non-destructive (destructive=false). The description adds a non-obvious behavioral trait: the API accepts fewer than the seven default channels Discord's UI requires, which is valuable for agents. However, it does not clarify whether omitting prompts/default_channels resets or preserves existing settings, a meaningful gap for a mutating 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no filler. The second sentence earns its place by surfacing a non-obvious constraint about default channel counts. Excellent conciseness and structure.

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 moderate complexity (5 params, nested one level, no output schema), the description plus schema provide a solid picture. It lacks explicit statement about partial update behavior (whether omitted fields are reset) and return value, but annotations and schema mitigate some of this. The API quirk adds helpful context.

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 covers about 60% of parameters with descriptions. The description supplements this by explaining that prompts grant channels/roles and default_channels are what every member sees, plus the enabled state. It does not cover mode/guild, but those are adequately described in the schema. The overall semantic contribution is helpful without redundancy.

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 opens with a specific action ('Configure the new-member onboarding flow') and enumerates the configurable aspects: prompts with options granting channels and roles, default channels, and enabled state. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_onboarding and other update tools.

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 purpose statement makes it clear when to use this tool for onboarding configuration. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the description and sibling get_onboarding give practical context. The note about Discord's app requiring seven default channels while the API accepts fewer provides useful usage guidance.

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