discord_send_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that handoff and insight artifacts are rendered to Markdown and attached as .md files, which is a key behavioral detail. It does not cover error cases or side effects, but the core action is well described.

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, well-structured paragraph. Every sentence adds essential information: purpose, parameter options with constraints, and artifact rendering details. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 has a moderate number of parameters (6) and no output schema, the description adequately covers input constraints and behavior. It could optionally mention return behavior (e.g., message ID or success status), but the current detail is sufficient for an AI agent to use 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds significant value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity constraint and the specific rendering behavior for handoff/insight IDs. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/enum info.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('Discord channel'), and clearly delineates the different types of content that can be sent (inline text, handoff/insight artifacts, predefined artifact types). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like discord_list_channels or generate_handoff.

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 states that exactly one of the four content options must be provided, which guides parameter selection. It also references related tools (handoff_id requires list_handoffs, artifact requires project_id). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over others, though the purpose is distinct enough.

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