delete_role

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. 'Permanently' is a genuine disclosure that the operation is irreversible, which is the highest-value behavioral fact here. It says nothing about required permissions, whether members holding the role lose it, or what happens to existing channel permission overwrites tied to the role.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and its key modifier. Nothing is wasted, no filler, no restatement of the name.

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 destructive mutation with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits permission requirements, cascading effects on members and channel overwrites, and any distinction from remove_role, leaving the agent under-informed before an irreversible call.

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%, so roleId, reason, and guildId are all documented in the schema itself with useful descriptions (including the DISCORD_GUILD_ID default). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('delete a role from the server'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from its nearest sibling remove_role, which strips a role from a member rather than destroying the role object — a distinction an agent must infer.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus remove_role or edit_role, and no prerequisites mentioned. The sibling list contains both delete_role and remove_role, so the absence of routing guidance is a real hazard.

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