discord_send_webhook_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read/write operation (implied write from 'sends'), error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs beyond parameters, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a tool with mutation potential.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, though it could benefit from additional context given the complexity.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter meanings, behavioral expectations, or output format, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic inference.

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 compensate but adds no parameter information beyond what's implied in the name. It doesn't explain what webhookId/webhookToken are, how content is formatted, or optional parameters like avatarURL/username/threadId. With 6 parameters (3 required) completely undocumented, this is a significant gap.

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 resource ('to a Discord channel using a webhook'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like discord_send (which likely uses different authentication) by specifying the webhook method, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives.

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 or discord_create_webhook. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a pre-configured webhook) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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