modify_server_widget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it falls short. It never states the required Discord permission (Manage Server), what disabling actually does to the widget/invite, or whether the call is idempotent.

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 carrying the action set with zero padding. It is a sentence fragment with no trailing period and no elaboration, which is efficient but leaves no room for the context the tool needs.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation of server-level config, the description should explain permissions, effects of disabling, and the relationship to get_server_widget. None of that is present, so an agent is under-equipped for a state-changing 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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'server widget channel' loosely echoes channelId but adds no format, default, or precedence detail beyond what the schema says.

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 concrete verb set (enable/disable/configure) against a specific resource (server widget channel), which is clearly distinct from the sibling get_server_widget. It stops short of naming that read sibling, so an agent must infer the pairing.

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 when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given. The presence of get_server_widget as a sibling makes the missing alternative guidance a real gap — nothing tells the agent to read first and write second.

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