modify_server_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only restates the field list. It does not disclose the required permissions, whether the change is auditable (despite an audit-log reason param existing), whether omitted fields are left untouched, or whether values like verification level are reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the fields inline with no filler. The field enumeration is slightly redundant against the schema, which keeps it from being maximally efficient, but it is well-sized and readable.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits permissions, reversibility, partial-update semantics, and the meaning of the audit-log reason, all of which an agent needs before mutating server-wide settings.

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% and the schema is actually richer than the description (afkTimeout enum values, empty-string-to-unset for afkChannelId, DISCORD_GUILD_ID default). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Edit) and resource (server settings) and enumerates the exact mutable fields, so an agent knows precisely what this touches. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby sibling modify_server_widget, but the enumerated settings make the scope unambiguous.

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 on when to use this versus other modify/edit tools, no prerequisites (e.g. Manage Server permission), and no note on partial vs full updates. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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