app_emojis_modify

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

Annotations already convey readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds the platform constraint that Discord does not allow editing emoji bytes, and it specifies the return shape. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't discuss permissions or side effects.

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 well-structured with clear headers (Purpose, When to use, When NOT to use, Returns). Every section is concise and informative, with no wasted words. The length is appropriate for the tool's 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?

Covers purpose, usage, exclusions, and return value. The presence of an output schema and annotations reduces the burden on the description. Still, it could mention whether any permissions are required or what happens if the name is omitted, but these are minor gaps for a simple rename tool.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, though it implies the 'name' parameter is essential for renaming. It does not clarify why 'name' is not listed as required in the schema, which is a slight 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 a specific action ('Rename') on a specific resource ('application emoji'), which distinguishes it from related tools like emojis_modify (guild emojis) and app_emojis_create/delete. The purpose is direct and unambiguous.

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 a clear 'When to use' section and a 'When NOT to use' section with a concrete example (replacing image bytes). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient to infer when this tool is appropriate. The exclusion is valuable and prevents misuse.

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