emojis_modify

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations, notably the limitation that image bytes cannot be edited and that image replacement requires creating a new emoji and deleting the old. It also states the return shape. Annotations already declare read-only as false, destructive as false, and idempotent as true, and the description is consistent with these.

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, with clear section headers (Purpose, When to use, When NOT to use, Returns) and no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and provides all necessary guidance in a compact format.

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?

Combined with the input/output schemas and annotations, the description provides sufficient context for correct tool selection and invocation. It covers usage scenarios, a critical limitation (image bytes cannot be edited), and the expected return structure, making it complete for an agent.

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%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description mentions 'name' and 'role restrictions' but does not elaborate on the `roles` replacement semantics or `audit_reason`, leaving those to the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3.

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 explicitly states 'Update a guild emoji's name and/or role restrictions,' clearly identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like emojis_create, emojis_delete, and emojis_get by focusing on modifying existing emojis.

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?

Includes 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, with explicit scenarios like renaming and role tier restrictions, and an exclusion for image replacement with a suggested alternative (create new and delete old). This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative operations.

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