members_modify

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavior: 'Pass only the fields you want to change' and explains voids (null) for clearing nick/timeout. However, it omits permission requirements (e.g., MANAGE_NICKNAMES, MUTE_MEMBERS) and doesn't disclose that replacing roles is a wholesale operation beyond the phrase 'replace role set wholesale.' With annotations present, this is solid but not exhaustive.

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: a single-sentence purpose, a bulleted list of use cases, a bold key instruction, and a return type. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is easily scannable for an AI agent.

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?

Given 10 parameters, an output schema, and annotations that declare it non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent, the description is thorough. It covers purpose, usage, partial-update behavior, and return format. The missing piece is explicit permission requirements, which is a notable gap for a mutation tool, but overall the description is comprehensive enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, with each parameter described. The description enhances this by grouping parameters into use cases and clarifying the partial-update model (undefined fields ignored). It also explains the null semantics for nick and communication_disabled_until, which are present in the schema but reinforced contextually. The baseline for full schema coverage is 3, and the description adds meaningful semantic grouping, making it a 4.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Modify') and a clear resource ('guild member'), listing the exact fields covered (nick, roles, voice state, timeout). It explicitly distinguishes itself from related tools like members_add_role and members_remove_role, and its sibling set includes similar member tools, making this differentiation valuable.

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?

A dedicated 'When to use' section enumerates specific scenarios (set nickname, replace roles, mute/deafen, move channel, timeout, flags). It explicitly instructs to prefer members_add_role/members_remove_role for single-role operations, providing clear alternative tool guidance. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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