discord_create_thread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the conditional creation modes and auto_archive_duration options. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens on success (e.g., thread ID returned). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves gaps in safety and 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by conditional behavior and parameter details in two efficient sentences. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity of a creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers key behavioral aspects and parameter semantics but lacks details on permissions, error handling, and return values. This leaves the agent with incomplete operational context, though it meets minimum viability for basic use.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the semantics of message_id (anchoring behavior) and auto_archive_duration (specific minute values), which complements the schema. However, it does not address parameters like type or invitable beyond what the schema already describes, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 the specific action ('Create a thread') and distinguishes between two modes: creating from a message or standalone. It explicitly mentions the resource (thread) and the conditional behavior based on message_id, which differentiates it from sibling tools like discord_send_message or discord_list_active_threads.

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 provides clear context on when to use different modes (with or without message_id) and mentions auto_archive_duration options. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like discord_send_message for general messaging or discord_list_active_threads for viewing threads, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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