discord_apply_blueprint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses idempotency and a safety guarantee ('never deletes unmanaged resources'), but it does not clarify whether managed resources absent from the blueprint are deleted, what permissions are required, or what the dryRun parameter does. This is valuable context but leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place; the description is efficient and readable. No redundancy with schema or annotations (which are absent).

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?

The tool has high complexity (nested blueprint, multiple resource types, no output schema), and the description provides only a high-level overview. It does not explain return behavior, dryRun semantics, or prerequisites (e.g., bot permissions). However, the core purpose is clear, and the 'never deletes' safety note adds important context, making it minimally adequate but incomplete.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining parameters such as guildId, blueprint, dryRun, or reason. While the blueprint object schema is detailed, the tool-level parameters (especially dryRun, which defaults to true) are left unexplained. The description's mention of 'blueprint' only implicitly references one of four parameters.

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 function: 'Idempotently create/update roles, categories, channels, forum tags, permissions, messages, pins, and guild settings from one blueprint.' It specifies the verb, resource scope, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like discord_upsert_channel or discord_upsert_role by focusing on bulk blueprint application.

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 implies usage for applying a full blueprint to a guild but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools like discord_plan_blueprint exist, but no exclusions or 'use this when' guidance is provided. It does hint at safety with 'never deletes unmanaged resources,' but that is more behavioral than usage context.

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