guild_blueprint_compile

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive, and the description richly expands on behavior: it never changes Discord, rejects dangerous permissions, validates limits, and requires placeholder revalidation. This adds substantial context beyond 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?

Well-structured with bold headers (Purpose, When to use, Safety, Returns), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence carries meaningful information. Size is justified for the tool's complexity.

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 description covers purpose, usage, safety, and return values, with an output schema present. It gives a complete picture for an agent to decide and invoke the tool correctly, including prerequisites for later dry-run/apply.

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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning to the 'request' parameter (natural-language server design) and clarifies the optional preferred_primary_code is only used when relevant and live-verified safe, which is 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?

Purpose is crystal clear: 'Turn one natural-language server request into a complete, deterministic, read-only Discord guild blueprint.' It names the specific verb+resource, describes the internal process, and explicitly distinguishes itself as the high-level entrypoint, noting it doesn't require calling templates_recommend first.

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 usage context: 'Use this as the high-level entrypoint for requests such as “build a professional gaming server”. A small model needs only this one call; it does not need to call templates_recommend first.' This directly guides when to use versus alternatives.

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