discord_request

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

The description adds transparency beyond the annotations by noting 'Total upload limit is 10 MiB' and 'Discord permissions and endpoint limits still apply.' These are important behavioral constraints not captured in the annotations. It does not explicitly warn about destructive actions, but the annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the generic 'Call any endpoint' clearly implies possible destructive 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 reasonably concise, with a clear opening sentence and a compact list of covered categories. The file example is a bit verbose but helpful. The overall structure flows logically from purpose to usage to limits, though the repetition of 'REST operations' is slightly redundant.

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 generic nature, the description covers essential context: what it does, how to structure requests, file upload constraints, and that Discord's own permissions/limits apply. It does not address error handling or authentication, but those are likely implied by the platform context. The absence of an output schema is acceptable for a generic endpoint caller.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), so the description adds meaning by explaining that 'path' and 'query' are supplied separately, and it gives a concrete example for the 'files' parameter structure. However, it does not elaborate on the 'body', 'method', or 'reason' parameters, leaving some ambiguity for those fields.

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 tool's purpose: 'Call any Discord v10 REST endpoint.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from the many specialized sibling tools (e.g., send_message, delete_message) by acting as a generic REST caller. The examples like '/guilds/123/roles' further clarify what it does.

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 usage guidance by listing covered areas (permissions, roles, moderation, invites, webhooks, emojis, scheduled events, threads, polls, and other REST operations). This implies that the tool is for operations not covered by dedicated siblings, though it does not name a specific alternative. The instruction 'Supply API-relative path and query separately' also gives practical usage direction.

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