emojis_delete

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds critical behavior: 'DESTRUCTIVE - IRREVERSIBLE', the need for `__confirm:true` and `MCP_DRY_RUN=false` to actually delete, and the returned object shape. This attributes beyond what annotations provide, especially the dry-run interaction, which is not in 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 compact and well-structured with bold headers, bullet points, and a direct return statement. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant filler. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of a destructive delete tool.

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?

For a destructive operation with annotations already covering safety flags, this description is complete: it explains purpose, when to use, when not to use (with alternative), the confirmation/dry-run requirements, and the return value. The presence of an output schema reduces need to explain returns in detail, and the description handles the crucial behavioral nuances.

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 meaning by explaining the `__confirm` parameter's role in authorizing the destructive operation and tying it to the server's `MCP_DRY_RUN` flag, going beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It doesn't detail every parameter, but the schema already does.

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 'Delete a custom guild emoji' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from the sibling `app_emojis_delete` by explicitly mentioning application emoji use that tool. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 explicit 'When to use' (retire stale/off-brand emoji) and 'When NOT to use' (application emoji → use app_emojis_delete), naming the alternative tool. It also includes the required confirmation and dry-run conditions, giving clear guidance on when and how to invoke.

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