commands_create_guild

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

Annotations already cover read-only, destructive, and idempotent hints. The description adds the useful behavioral detail about immediate propagation and lists the return fields. However, it does not disclose permission requirements or the exact semantics of 'upsert' (e.g., whether an existing command is replaced).

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 two sentences with clear bold section headers. It front-loads the purpose and returns, with no redundant or filler content.

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 15 parameters and extremely low schema description coverage, this description is too sparse. It provides no guidance on how to structure command options, permissions, or use cases, and the output schema does not compensate for the missing parameter context.

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 only 13%, and the description adds virtually no parameter-level meaning. It mentions 'guild-scoped' but does not explain the required application_id, guild_id, name, or the many optional fields. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 verb and resource: 'Create or upsert a guild-scoped slash command.' It also distinguishes from the global variant by noting that guild commands propagate immediately, which aligns with the sibling tool commands_create_global.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool versus the global alternative by highlighting the propagation timing difference. It does not explicitly exclude other alternatives like bulk overwrite, but the guild-vs-global contrast provides actionable usage guidance.

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