guild_modify_welcome_screen

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the most important behavioral nuance: welcome_channels is a full replacement list rather than a PATCH-merge, and passing null to description clears it. This prevents a common misuse of the API and is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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, front-loaded, and formatted with bold labels for Purpose, When to use, and Returns. Every line adds information: the replacement semantics, null-to-clear behavior, and return shape, with no 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?

For a 5-parameter update tool, the description covers purpose, when to use, critical replacement semantics, and return value, while the schema covers ids and audit reason. Minor gaps remain, such as prerequisites like the server needing Community settings enabled or explicit pointers to the read-only sibling, but the tool is adequately invocable.

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?

The input schema describes guild_id and audit_reason but leaves enabled, description, and welcome_channels undocumented. The description compensates for two of those by explaining the replacement-list semantics and null-to-clear behavior, while the remaining enabled parameter is self-evident.

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 opens with 'Update the Community welcome screen,' a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes this tool from broader guild mutation tools. It further lists the three editable aspects (enabled, description, highlighted channels), making the scope unmistakable.

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?

The 'When to use' section gives concrete scenarios: toggling enabled, changing the top description, and swapping the up-to-5 highlighted channels. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as using guild_get_welcome_screen for reads, but the usage context is clear.

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