Set Discord incident actions

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

Adds substantial context beyond the hints: emergency posture ('no backup is required'), a hard safety bound (24-hour cap per window), and the exact reversion mechanism. Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld, so the description correctly spends its words on constraints rather than restating them; only permission requirements and the role of 'confirm' are undisclosed.

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, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the safety constraints packed into a compact list. Every clause carries information an agent 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the essentials for a destructive emergency mutation. The remaining gap is the omit-vs-null distinction and the purpose of the `confirm` flag, which matter for a tool that immediately re-enables on null.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It does explain the 'null = re-enable' semantics and the 24h ceiling for the two `*DisabledUntil` params, which the schema does not, but `guildId`, `reason`, and especially `confirm` are never addressed, and it is silent on whether omitting a window leaves it untouched.

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?

Specific verb ('disable') plus concrete resources ('guild invites and/or DMs') and a trigger condition ('during a raid or incident'). It does not name a sibling tool, though 'no backup is required' implicitly contrasts it with the backup/restore family rather than an overlapping tool.

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?

Gives a clear use context ('during a raid or incident') and states the exit path ('null re-enables immediately'), which is real operational guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or saying explicitly when not to use it versus normal guild-settings updates.

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