stickers_create_guild_sticker

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation; the description adds concrete constraints: 'multipart', 'File MUST be a base64 data URI', and a return shape. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Each section (Purpose, When, When NOT, Example, Returns) is tight and information-dense, using bold headers for scannability with no redundant prose.

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 creation tool, it covers purpose, usage, exclusions, a worked example, and return shape. It lacks permission/error details, but output schema exists and complexity is modest, making this sufficient.

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 schema covers all 7 parameters with descriptions, including file_format enum mapping and file_data base64 requirement; the description's example provides a concrete sample but doesn't add new semantic insight 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 'Upload a new custom sticker to a guild (multipart)' which clearly states the action (upload) and object (new custom sticker), and explicitly distinguishes from modifying via sibling tool references.

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' and 'When NOT to use' sections explicitly name the alternative `stickers_modify_guild_sticker` and note format mismatch rejection, giving clear guidance on when not to use.

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