discord_plan_blueprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'non-destructive', which is a key safety trait, but does not describe other behaviors such as whether it reads live guild data, any permission requirements, or the structure of the returned action plan.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Compare') and includes a concise scope and safety qualifier. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 the tool's complexity (large nested blueprint object, two required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain what an 'action plan' contains, how it should be used, or what to expect as a return value, leaving significant gaps for an agent to fill.

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?

The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. Saying 'version-1 server blueprint' restates the schema's version const:1 and the 'blueprint' parameter name. It does not explain the parameters in a way that helps an agent understand their semantics, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('a version-1 server blueprint with the live guild'), and specifies the output ('non-destructive action plan'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discord_apply_blueprint (which applies changes) and discord_export_snapshot (which exports a snapshot).

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 phrase 'non-destructive action plan' implies this is for planning rather than applying, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention using it as a precursor to apply_blueprint. Usage context is only implicit.

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