discord-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete') but doesn't describe critical traits: whether this requires specific permissions (e.g., 'Manage Roles'), if it's irreversible, what happens to members with that role, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words—it states the action and target efficiently. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. No structural issues are present.

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's complexity (a destructive operation), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address permissions, irreversibility, effects on members, error conditions, or return values. For a delete tool in a permissions-sensitive context like Discord, this leaves the agent under-informed about critical operational aspects.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about parameters—it doesn't explain what 'guild_id' or 'role_id' are, their formats (e.g., numeric IDs), or the optional 'reason' parameter's purpose (e.g., for audit logs). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving all three parameters semantically unclear.

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 action ('Delete') and target ('a role from a guild'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'discord_remove_role' (which likely removes a role from a member) and 'discord_edit_role' by specifying deletion rather than modification or removal. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the permanent nature of deletion, which could be inferred but isn't stated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring administrative permissions), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or related tools like 'discord_edit_role' for modifications instead of deletion. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list alone.

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