discord_create_webhook

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

Beyond what annotations declare (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description discloses two non-obvious behaviors: the returned token grants unauthenticated posting power and must be treated as a secret, and the Manage Webhooks permission is required. The SECURITY warning is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs to handle the result responsibly.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: the core action and return value first, then the security caveat, then permission and downstream routing. No filler, and the most safety-critical information is given immediate prominence.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs: purpose, return fields (id and token), the security implications of those fields, required permission, and the follow-up tool. The only minor gap is that the exact response structure/format is not spelled out, but naming 'ID and token' is sufficient for extraction.

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% — name, avatar, and channel_id each have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies; it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 verb+resource pair ('Create a webhook on a channel') and states the concrete outcome (returns its ID and token). This cleanly separates it from the webhook sibling family — send, edit, delete, list — without needing to name any of them.

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 operational context: it names the required permission (Manage Webhooks) and explicitly routes the agent to the downstream consumer (discord_send_webhook_message) with the returned id+token. It does not state when-not-to-use or contrast with alternatives like discord_list_webhooks, but the workflow guidance is strong enough to count as clear context.

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