Connect Discord interaction bus

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat the write/intent. It adds some context by specifying that the scaffold includes 'bot-token/signature safety notes' and 'adapter source', which hints at configuration behavior. However, it does not disclose side effects, required authentication, or how the scaffold interacts with external Discord systems, beyond what annotations imply.

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 sentence, dense but not verbose. Every phrase adds meaning, listing specific scaffold components. It loses a point because the long comma-separated list makes it slightly less scannable, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded with the action 'Create'.

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 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description leaves many gaps. It does not explain the purpose of parameters like active, guild_label, or channel_label, nor does it describe what happens after creation, return values, or how the scaffold is structured. The description is too brief to fully support invocation for a tool with this complexity.

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 low (20%), with only 'name' and 'parent_path' described. The description mentions concepts like 'command rows', 'message rows', 'approval policy', and 'adapter source', which map to some parameters (command_count, message_count, approval_required, adapter_url/adapter_mode), but it does not explain individual parameters or cover active, guild_label, channel_label, or numeric bounds. The description partially compensates but not sufficiently for 10 parameters.

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 the resource 'Discord interaction scaffold', listing specific components (command rows, message rows, approval policy, adapter source, safety notes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect_mqtt_iot_bus or connect_webrtc_browser_input, which target different platforms.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The purpose is implied by the name, but no context is given for choosing this over other connect_* tools, leaving the agent without decision support.

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