stickers_modify_guild_sticker

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which already convey safety and mutability. The description adds important context not in annotations: the inability to replace the sticker file, and the return schema. It avoids contradicting annotations, contributing meaningful behavioral detail beyond the structured 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 well-structured with bold headings and bullet points, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence provides essential information: purpose, when to use, when not to use, and return format. No wasted words or redundant repetitions.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation behavior, file-replacement gotcha), the description covers all critical aspects: what it updates, when to use it, the critical limitation about file replacement, and return shape. The existence of an output schema means return values are fully documented elsewhere. Sibling tool differentiation is clear, and the agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, with every parameter (name, tags, guild_id, sticker_id, description, audit_reason) having meaningful descriptions. The tool description lists the three updatable fields ('name, description, or tags') but does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly states 'Update a guild sticker's name, description, or tags', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stickers_create_guild_sticker and stickers_delete_guild_sticker by focusing on modification. The 'Returns' line further clarifies what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly provides 'When to use' ('Rebrand or re-tag an existing sticker') and 'When NOT to use' ('Replacing the sticker file - Discord does not allow editing the file; create a new one and delete the old'). This gives clear guidance on when to prefer this tool over creation/deletion alternatives.

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