discord_create_forum_channel

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

Annotations convey only readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false; the description adds beyond this by disclosing the authorization requirement ('Requires the Manage Channels permission') and the return payload ('Returns the new channel's name and ID'), which is valuable since there is no output schema. It does not cover failure behavior or rate limits, but the added context meaningfully exceeds the annotations.

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?

Five short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, concept, permission prerequisite, sibling alternative, and return value. The core action is front-loaded and there is zero filler or redundancy.

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 create operation with no output schema, the description provides the full picture: purpose, conceptual model, permission requirement, sibling routing, and return value, while the schema documents every parameter. Only minor details such as duplicate-creation behavior or rate limits are unmentioned, but annotations already signal non-idempotence.

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 100%, so name, topic, guild_id, and category_id are each already documented. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden; no compensation is needed.

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?

States a specific action and resource — 'Create a new forum channel in a server' — and clarifies the concept: 'A forum holds posts (threads) rather than a linear message feed.' It also names the sibling it is not (discord_create_channel for text/voice channels), so an agent can distinguish the tools without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes selection: 'Use discord_create_channel for text/voice channels instead,' and the forum-vs-linear-feed distinction defines the condition that selects this tool. The 'Requires the Manage Channels permission' prerequisite also tells the agent when the call is authorized. No inference is required.

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