Update welcome screen

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it modifies the description and channel cards, but does not disclose whether omitted fields are preserved or reset, the role of the `enabled` parameter, or any other side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff. Every word adds value.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the main functionality but leaves gaps: it does not explain the `enabled` parameter, whether updates are partial or full, or the return value. The existence of get_welcome_screen helps, but more detail would be needed for complete guidance.

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 input schema coverage is only 25% (guild is documented). The description clarifies that `channels` refers to 'channel cards' with a maximum of five (aligning with maxItems), and mentions the `description` field. However, the `enabled` parameter is left unexplained, and the description does not fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('Community welcome screen'), and clearly distinguishes what can be edited: the description and up to five channel cards. This sets it apart from the read-only sibling get_welcome_screen 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 description implies usage by stating what it edits (welcome screen settings) and implicitly positions it as the update counterpart to get_welcome_screen. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use this tool.

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