discord_create_thread

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: returns the new thread's ID, requires Create Public Threads permission, and the condition for failure. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which align with a creation operation. No contradictions; the description adds valuable context beyond 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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with the main action, clear and free of unnecessary words. Each sentence adds value: the first states the core functionality, the second provides a constraint, and the third mentions permissions and return.

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 complexity of two creation modes and associated constraints (permission, failure condition), the description covers all essential information. It mentions the return value (thread ID) despite no output schema. The tool's behavior is fully explained for an agent to use correctly.

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% with detailed descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining the two usage modes and the requirement for channel_id to be a text channel. While it does not elaborate on each parameter individually, the overall context compensates, elevating the score above the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'create' and resource 'thread', and distinguishes two modes (branching from a message or standalone). It explicitly says standalone creation requires a parent text channel and fails if channel_id is a thread, differentiating it from sibling tools like create_channel.

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 clear context for when to use each mode (pass message_id for branching, omit for standalone) and a constraint (fails if channel_id is a thread). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools for different scenarios.

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