onboarding_modify

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds important context: it clarifies full-replace behavior, warns about the safe disabled configuration, and notes requirements for enabling. This goes beyond the annotations' boolean hints.

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 (three short sections) and uses bold labels for quick scanning. It includes a relevant documentation link and no filler words.

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 moderately complex modify operation, the description covers purpose, full-replace semantics, enabling requirements, and return shape. Given the rich output schema and annotations, this is sufficient, though it omits permission requirements.

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 covers all 6 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds a link to Discord docs for prompt structure and mentions the default channel requirements, but doesn't elaborate on individual parameters 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?

The description opens with a clear action: 'Replace a guild's onboarding configuration (PUT - full replace).' This is specific and distinguishes the tool from sibling `onboarding_get` and other modify tools. The full-replace semantics are explicitly stated.

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 description provides context by stating it is a full-replace operation and lists enabling requirements (at least 7 default channels, 5 with @everyone), which helps an agent know prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of full guidance.

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