discord_reply_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden. It only discloses the ping behavior, but does not mention permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or whether the reply is visible to others. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 very concise: one sentence plus a parenthetical. It is front-loaded with the core action. While it could include more detail, it wastes no words and is easily parsed.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use content or embeds, or any error conditions. An agent would need additional context to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description only explains the ping parameter. Required params channelId and messageId are self-explanatory from names, but content and embeds remain completely undescribed. The description adds marginal value beyond parameter names.

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 action 'Reply to a message', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like discord_send_message (new message) and discord_edit_message (edit existing). The mention of 'ping:false' adds parameter-specific context.

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 gives a tip about setting ping:false to avoid pinging the author, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to other messaging tools like discord_send_message. No prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned.

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