components_v2_build_section

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that Discord rejects a Section without an accessory, which is a key behavioral constraint. It also states the return type is a Section JSON node, which is helpful. The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description does not contradict that.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections: Purpose, When to use, and Returns. Each sentence earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, one complex accessory schema) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It does not explain the accessory variants in detail, but the schema fully covers that, so the description is sufficient.

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 both parameters already described in the schema ('1-3 markdown text lines' and 'Required Thumbnail (type 11) or Button (type 2)'). The description essentially restates this, adding only the emphasis on the accessory being REQUIRED. No new parameter-level meaning is provided beyond the schema.

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 starts with a clear action verb 'Build' and specifies the resource 'Components V2 Section (type 9)'. It further differentiates from sibling tools by noting the section requires 1-3 TextDisplay lines plus a Thumbnail or Button accessory, which is distinct from container or media gallery builders.

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?

It explicitly provides a 'When to use' section: 'card-like content with header + supporting text + image'. This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools. It is still enough to guide selection among the sibling builder tools.

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