stickers_modify_guild_sticker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation profile is clear. The description adds the key behavioral constraint that the sticker file cannot be edited, which is critical context beyond the annotations. It also discloses the return value shape, which helps the agent understand what to expect.

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 with clear sections: Purpose, When to use, When NOT to use, and Returns. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information (what it does and the file-replacement caveat) is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, usage boundaries, and return value. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention the audit_reason parameter's behavior, but the schema already documents that, so the description doesn't need to repeat it.

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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters with types, constraints, and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage. The description does clarify the overall purpose of the parameters (updating name/description/tags) but doesn't need to go deeper.

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 ('Update') and resource ('guild sticker'), and lists the exact mutable fields (name, description, tags). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like stickers_create_guild_sticker and stickers_delete_guild_sticker by focusing on modification of an existing sticker.

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 explicitly states 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 is excellent guidance that prevents a common misuse.

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