discord_intent_plan

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explicitly states that the planner performs no Discord REST call, grants no approval, never executes returned steps, and may only do a read-only target lookup via middleware. This meaningfully clarifies the tool's non-executing behavior and the stable SHA-256 plan digest, which annotations alone would not convey.

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 into Purpose, Supported intents, Safety, and Returns sections. It front-loads the core purpose and every sentence contributes new information without padding.

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 output schema, annotations, and 100% schema parameter coverage, the description is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool. It covers what the tool does, which intents are valid, its safety guarantees, and what it returns.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds real value by enumerating the accepted intent values, including natural-language separators and Vietnamese aliases, which the schema's generic 'One supported explicit Discord intent' description does not provide. It does not deeply explain deny/allow bitfields, but the schema descriptions cover those.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Normalize a small, explicit Discord outcome into a deterministic, reviewable plan.' It then enumerates the exact supported intents, which makes the tool's scope unmistakable and differentiates it from the many execution-oriented sibling tools like messages_send or channels_delete.

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 for when to use the tool: it is for supported intents like lock_channel, announce, verify, and lock_and_announce, and it explicitly positions the tool as a planner rather than an executor. It does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the supported-intent list and read-only planner framing provide strong usage guidance.

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