discord_clone_channel

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the permission requirement, the returned payload (cloned channel's name and ID), and the precise copy scope including the explicit non-copying of messages. This supplements rather than contradicts the annotations — readOnlyHint=false aligns with creating, destructiveHint=false aligns with a non-destructive clone.

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?

Three concise sentences deliver action, scope, prerequisite, and return value with zero filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema present, the explicit return value statement is a necessity and is provided. The only notable gap is that the description is silent on whether the clone preserves the source channel's type or category placement, which an agent might reasonably assume; this is a minor ambiguity for an otherwise well-covered tool.

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 coverage is 100%: both channel_id and new_name are already documented in the schema, including the default behavior of new_name. The description's mention of "name" in the copied scope loosely ties to new_name, but this is a marginal addition beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline of 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?

"Create a copy of a channel" states a specific verb and resource, and the description goes further by enumerating exactly what is included (name, topic, permission overwrites) and excluded (messages). This scope precision clearly differentiates it from siblings like discord_create_channel (new empty channel) and discord_copy_permissions (permissions only).

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 clear applicability context: the Manage Channels permission prerequisite and the explicit "but not its messages" boundary, which tells an agent when this tool will not satisfy a request (e.g., if message history must be duplicated). However, it never names alternative tools such as discord_create_channel or discord_copy_permissions, so when-not guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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