discord_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey the tool's behavioral profile. It clearly states the primary mutation (sending a message) and the optional reply action. However, it omits any detail about prerequisites (e.g., authentication via discord_login), failure modes for invalid channel IDs, or potential rate limits. The description covers the core effect but not the full operational context.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the primary action and then adds the optional reply behavior. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 three-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the main functionality and all parameters well. It lacks any mention of the return value or error handling, but these are secondary for a simple send operation. The description is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity, though a note about response format would push it to 5.

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?

Although the input schema has no descriptions, the tool description effectively explains all three parameters: 'specified Discord text channel' maps to channelId, 'message' is the content, and 'providing its message ID' clarifies replyToMessageId. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage and adds clear meaning beyond the raw property names.

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 identifies the verb (sends) and the resource (a message to a specified Discord text channel). It also mentions the optional reply feature, which differentiates it from sibling tools like discord_send_webhook_message or discord_create_forum_post. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 implies usage: it is for sending messages to text channels and optionally replying to existing messages. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as webhooks or forum posts. There is no exclusion or comparison to siblings, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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