discord_raw_guild_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses route restrictions (allowed guild, verified channels, etc.), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't warn about side effects, authorization requirements, or the meaning of safety parameters like dryRun/confirm, so transparency is partial.

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 purpose and restrictions. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 complex raw-request tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is under-specified. It gives scope but lacks operational detail: how to construct a route, what the confirm field is for, what a dryRun does, and what responses to expect. This is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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 provides zero parameter information, despite the schema having 7 parameters with 0% coverage. While the schema types and enum offer some hints, the description adds no meaning to body, route, dryRun, or confirm, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies this as an 'advanced escape hatch' for Discord REST endpoints, with an explicit scoping to routes 'not covered above.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools and communicates its general-purpose raw request nature.

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?

It states the tool should be used for endpoints not covered by other tools, which implies a fallback role. It lists the specific resource types allowed (guild, verified channels, webhooks, etc.), giving usable context for when to invoke it, though it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly.

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