discord_edit_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'edits' without revealing whether this is a partial update or a full replacement, what permissions are needed, whether the webhook token is mandatory, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 is front-loaded with the main action and resource. There is no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple edit operation.

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 tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It provides no information about return values, error conditions, authorization requirements, or the semantics of the parameters. This is incomplete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, meaning none of the six parameters (name, avatar, reason, channelId, webhookId, webhookToken) are explained in the schema. The description also fails to add any meaning beyond the bare verb, leaving the agent to guess the role of parameters like 'reason' or 'webhookToken'. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage at all.

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 purpose: 'Edits an existing webhook for a Discord channel.' It uses a specific verb ('edits') and resource ('existing webhook'), and the scope is clear. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_webhook' or 'delete_webhook' by focusing on modification of an existing entity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, required fields beyond the schema, or conditions under which this tool should be preferred over create/delete webhook. The usage context is only implied by the name and sibling tools, not explicitly stated.

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