guild_modify

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true; description avoids contradiction. Adds behavioral context: 'Pass only fields you want to change' (partial update) and return shape details, including caveat that name and description remain raw with untrusted_text as separately fenced copy.

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 uses bold headers and bullet lists to separate purpose, usage, and returns. No filler; each section earns its place.

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?

Despite the 22-parameter complexity and low schema coverage, the description covers core scenarios, returns shape, and important data-safety caveats. However, it doesn't enumerate all parameters or their semantics, so completeness is solid but not exhaustive.

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?

With schema coverage at 23%, the description must compensate but only offers thematic examples (rename, verification level, channels, premium bar) without mapping to parameter names. Most of the 22 parameters (banner, splash, features, owner_id, afk_timeout, system_channel_flags, etc.) are left unexplained, so agents cannot infer valid values or constraints.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Update' and noun 'guild-level settings', and enumerates example fields (rename, verification level, channels, premium progress bar). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming channels_modify, roles_modify, and guild_modify_welcome_screen.

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?

Has dedicated 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections. The NOT-to-use section identifies exact alternative sibling tools (channels_modify, roles_modify, guild_modify_welcome_screen), giving clear decision criteria.

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