emojis_create

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses a specific rejection limit for image size and indicates in the Returns line that the response carries `{id, name, animated, roles}`. These are behavioral constraints an agent should anticipate, and no statement in the description contradicts the annotations.

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 organized with Purpose, When to use, When NOT to use, Example, and Returns sections. Every sentence or line provides distinct, non-repetitive value, and it avoids wasting space with generic filler.

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 tool is a straightforward create action, and the description covers the essential behavior, the sibling scope, and a critical file-size constraint. Since an output schema exists and the input schema fully documents all parameters, the description doesn't need to repeat parameter explanations. A minor gap is not explicitly mentioning `audit_reason`, but that is already covered by the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example showing how `guild_id`, `name`, and `image` are combined, and it adds an image-size constraint that is not present in the schema. This is genuinely useful enrichment, though remaining parameters (`roles`, `audit_reason`) are still fully explained only by 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 states a specific action ('Upload a new custom emoji to a guild') with a resource and scope. It explicitly distinguishes the resource from the application-wide sibling via 'When NOT to use', so the agent can tell `emojis_create` apart from `app_emojis_create` and `emojis_modify`.

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 includes both 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, naming the alternative (`app_emojis_create`) and the condition that makes this tool inapplicable (image size >256KB). This gives the agent a concrete decision rule rather than vague context.

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