discord_reply_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it adds nothing beyond the name: no mention of required permissions, whether the reply creates a reference/thread, what happens on an invalid message_id, or whether the channel is inferred from the message. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing information captured under other dimensions.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent needs beyond the bare action: no side-effect disclosure, no alternative routing to discord_send_message, and no indication of what a successful call returns.

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 all three parameters (message_id, content, channel_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics such as format, length limits, or the default-to-active-channel behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (reply) and resource (a specific message in Discord), which is more precise than a generic send. However, it never contrasts with the sibling discord_send_message, so the agent must infer the difference between 'reply to' and 'send' from the names alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the obvious alternative (discord_send_message) for plain messages, and no prerequisite conditions. Usage is only implied by the word 'reply'.

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