Create guild

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: guild is bot-owned, blueprint provisioning in a single request, and the 10-guild limit. However, it does not mention potential partial failures or what happens if the blueprint is invalid, which would be useful.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds necessary information. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and structured.

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 (nested blueprint objects, no output schema, minimal annotations), the description covers the primary use case, the limiting condition, and the fallback path. It lacks information about return values or failure handling, but the overview is sufficient for basic selection. The exclusion of apply_blueprint is correctly highlighted.

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 50%, so the description should compensate. The description explains the blueprint parameter's purpose (provisioning roles, categories, channels, permission overwrites), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, the required 'name' parameter is not given additional context, and the description does not clarify parameter interactions (e.g., that blueprint.name is overridden).

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 creates a new guild owned by the bot, with an optional blueprint for full structure provisioning. It distinguishes itself from apply_blueprint by focusing on new guild creation, and mentions the 'owned by the bot' aspect that is unique to this 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?

The description explicitly provides a usage condition ('Only works while the bot is in fewer than 10 guilds') and a clear alternative path ('otherwise create the server manually, invite the bot, and use apply_blueprint'). This gives excellent guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling apply_blueprint.

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