discord_send

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 states the tool sends a message but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid channel ID), or what happens on success (e.g., returns message ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of sending a Discord message (a mutation with potential permissions and formatting requirements), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies 'channelId' and 'message' parameters but doesn't explain their semantics (e.g., format of channel ID, message length limits, or content restrictions). The description adds minimal value beyond what the bare schema provides, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 action ('Sends a message') and target ('to a specified Discord text channel'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'discord_send_webhook_message' or 'discord_reply_to_forum_post', which also involve sending messages through different mechanisms.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'discord_send_webhook_message' or 'discord_reply_to_forum_post'. It mentions the target is a 'Discord text channel' but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing proper permissions or channel access) or exclusions (e.g., not for forum posts or webhooks).

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