app_emojis_delete

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

While destructiveHint already signals danger, the description adds crucial behavioral detail: the deletion is irreversible, and actual deletion only occurs when both `__confirm:true` and `MCP_DRY_RUN=false` are set. It also states the return shape. These additions go beyond the structured annotation.

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 compact, well-structured with bold headers, and every sentence carries essential information. No filler or redundant text.

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?

The description covers purpose, when to use/not use, safety conditions, and return format. Combined with rich annotations, a complete input schema, and an output schema, the tool is fully contextualized for an 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (including `__confirm`) already documented. The tool description largely reiterates the `__confirm` semantics rather than adding new parameter-level meaning. The 'Returns' line concerns output, not parameter details.

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 'Delete an application emoji' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from the sibling `emojis_delete` by explicitly noting 'Guild emoji → use `emojis_delete`'. This leaves no ambiguity about scope.

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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, naming the alternative tool (`emojis_delete`) for guild emoji. It also gives operational context (requires `__confirm:true` and `MCP_DRY_RUN=false`) for invoking the destructive action correctly.

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