soundboard_send_sound

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, etc.), the description discloses the return format and the error behavior when the gateway prerequisite is not met. It adds useful context about the operation's side effects without contradicting the annotations. The description could further detail permission requirements or rate limits, but it provides meaningful additional behavioral insight.

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 extremely concise, using three labeled sections (Purpose, Pre-requisite, Returns) that are front-loaded and directly useful. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content. It is easy to scan and immediately actionable.

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 simple tool with a complete output schema and annotated safety profile, the description is sufficient. It covers the key operational prerequisite, the return structure, and the core purpose. It could optionally mention how to obtain a valid sound_id or note that source_guild_id is optional, but the schema already indicates this, making the description contextually complete for this complexity level.

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 has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly described. The description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, only referencing channel_id in the prerequisite. Since the schema already carries the full burden, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Play a soundboard sound in a voice channel.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like soundboard_list_guild_sounds or soundboard_create_guild_sound, which manage sounds rather than send them. The purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.

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 a strong prerequisite: the bot MUST be voice-connected to channel_id, and warns that without --gateway enabled, Discord will return an error. This gives clear context for when to use the tool and a key failure condition, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or enumerate when-not scenarios beyond the connectivity prerequisite.

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